The Anti-monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China, formally implemented on August 1, 2008, marks the basic completion of our country’s competitive legal framework. The main method of the Anti-monopoly Law to regulate competitors’ concentration is to attach restrictive conditions to the concentration of business operators. Our country is weak in legislation and practice of this law, compared with western countries and regions like America and the EU, who have established relatively mature restrictive conditions to the concentration of business operators with rich practical experience as support. This paper has analyzed relevant systems from home and abroad, proposed shortages of the current situation of legislation and law enforcement in our country, and put forward suggestions that could improve such situation. The following is the structure of the paper. Chapter One illustrates and sorts out relevant concepts of additional restrictive conditions. First, it analyzes business merger and concentrations of business operators, and introduces that this paper has chosen the call of concentrations of business operators. Second, it analyzes meanings of merger and relief in English, American and Chinese laws respectively. At last, it makes differences between additional restrictive conditions and anti-monopoly exemption. In Chapter Two, it describes the current situation of legislation of additional restrictive condition system in our country at first. Then it analyzes and describes the practice situations of structural restrictive conditions and non-structural restrictive conditions through analysis of 18 cases. In the third paragraph,it analyzes shortages of current legislation, including incomplete principles of additional restrictive conditions, unreasonable classification of restrictive conditions, lack of the assessment V mechanisms of effectiveness of restrictive conditions, lack of the determination mechanisms of the to-be-divested assets, lack of regulations of confirming time limit of qualified buyers, and imperfect mechanisms of guaranteeing business energy of divested assets. In the fourth paragraph,it analyzes shortages in practices, including lack of public disclosure of law enforcement information, separation of the choice of restrictive conditions with restoration of market competition, and lack of directions of carrying out non-structural restrictive conditions. In Chapter Three, the author gives suggestions to improve such shortages specific to problems in Chapter Two. First, principles of additional restrictive conditions should be established, including goals of carrying out restrictive conditions, determination basis of restrictive conditions, application situations of different types of restrictive conditions, assessment principles, principle of proportionality, and principles of cost control. In the second paragraph, the author gives his own opinions on classification of restrictive conditions. Then,the author points out that various factors should be considered to be regulated in our country in choosing restrictive conditions, including risks of structural restrictive conditions, risks of non-structural restrictive conditions, and influential factors in choosing types of restrictive conditions. In the three paragraph, the author puts forward that an assessment mechanism of effectiveness of restrictive conditions should be built in our nation. From fourth to sixth paragraphs, the author proposes methods to improve the implementation of structural restrictive conditions, including adding the determination mechanisms of the to-be-divested assets, adding regulations of confirming time limit of qualified buyers, and improving mechanisms of guaranteeing business energy of divested assets. At last, in seven paragraph, the author puts forward methods to improve the implementation of non-structural restrictive conditions, including regulation of design principles of non-structural restrictive conditions, adding supervisory mechanism to guarantee responsibility fulfillment, and adding settlement mechanisms of disputes.

2008 年 8 月 1 日起正式施行的《中华人民共和国反垄断法》标志着我国竞争 法律框架的基本成型。经营者集中附加限制性条件是反垄断法规制竞争者集中的 重要手段。相对于美国、欧盟等西方国家和地区已经建立起较为成熟的经营者集 中附限制性条件制度，并有丰富实践经验予以支撑而言，我国对该制度的立法与 实践就显得相对薄弱了。本文通过比较国内外的相关制度，提出了我国目前在立 法与执法上的不足，并提出了完善的建议，具体结构安排如下： 本文在第一章中阐述了附加限制性条件相关概念，并对相关概念进行梳理， 首先辨析了企业合并与经营者集中，并说明了本文选择经营者集中称谓；其次， 对英美法中的“合并”与“救济”的含义加以分析；最后对“附加限制性条件” 与“反垄断豁免”加以区别。 在第二章中，笔者首先描述了我国附加限制性条件制度的立法现状；其次通 过对 18 件案例的分析描述了结构性限制条件和非结构性限制条件的实践现状； 接着在第三节分析了目前立法上的不足之处，包括不完整的附加限制性条件原 则、限制性条件的分类不合理、缺失限制性条件有效性评估机制、缺失待剥离资 产的确定机制、缺失对确定合格购买者时限的规定、不完善的剥离资产商业活力 保障机制；第四节中分析了实践中的不足，包括执法信息公开程度不足、限制条 件的选择与恢复市场竞争脱离、缺失对实施非结构性限制条件的指导。 在第三章中，笔者结合第二章分析的种种问题，提出了完善的建议，首先需 要构建附加限制性条件原则，包括实施限制性条件的目的、限制条件的确定基础、 限制性条件类型的适用、评估原则、相称性原则、成本控制原则；接着在第二节 中，笔者对限制性条件的分类提出了自己的见解，并指出我国应当规定在选择限 制性条件时需要考虑的各种因素，包括结构性限制条件的风险、非结构性限制条 件的风险、影响限制性条件类型选择的因素；然后在第三节中提出了我国需要建 立限制性条件有效性评估机制；在第四节至第六节中提出了如何完善我国结构性 限制条件的实施，包括加入待剥离资产确定机制、加入确定合格购买者时限机制、 完善剥离资产商业活力的保障机制；最后在第七节中提出了如何完善我国非结构 性限制条件的实施，包括需要对非结构性限制条件的设计原则加以规定、加入保 障尽责监督机制、加入争议的解决机制。