Second, enforcement records reflect increased transparency. Under the Anti-Monopoly Law, the Minister of Commerce is required to publish prohibition and conditional merger decisions, but not unconditional merger clearance. For monopoly agreements and abuse of the dominant position a company enjoys in the market, the law says enforcement agencies "may publish the decisions", which means that publication of decisions is at the discretion of the NDRC and the SAIC. But despite that, the NDRC and SAIC have published enforcement information and decisions, and, since late 2012, the Ministry of Commerce has made public merger decisions on a quarterly basis.
And third, rule-making has been expedited to increase legal certainty and accountability. New rules, including those limiting discretionary powers, are in the offing.
In sum, China's antitrust move broadly conforms to international norms in substance and is marked by increasing transparency and due process. Due process and fair dealings are fundamental human rights, which should be applicable to enterprises too.
But procedural rules differ significantly from one country to another, depending on variables such as legal culture, tradition and stage of development. China, though, welcomes unbiased and constructive opinions. There is an increasing need for lawyers to help resolve questions, from substantial to procedural aspects of complicated antitrust cases.
People are indeed welcome to bring in their lawyers. Chinese antitrust enforcement officials are listening. But finding faults where there are none and spreading rumors or rigidly applying the US and EU standards to Chinese rules do not help.
The author is an associate professor at the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.