to the USA in this arena, for example, the original antimonopoly law was transplanted from the American soil during the post World War II occupation period as an integral part of the economic democratization of Japan. It is true that several rounds of revisions, which took place after the end of the occupation period in 1952, were intended to strike a balance between the rules transplanted from the American soil and the indigenous sense of “fair” competition. Nevertheless, it remains to be the case that the formal contents of Japan’s antimonopoly law is not that different from the American prototype law and, for that matter, the EU model. The difference, if any, lies mostly in the administrative methods of implementation. There are room as well as reason for talking about harmonization of domestic competition policies in this arena.

Recollect that international harmonization of domestic rules --- including domestic competition laws and policies --- requires that the domestic rules of the game prevailing in the country A must be in basic harmony with those prevailing in the country B. Certainly, it has no root in the two basic principles of the GATT/WTO regime, viz. the principle of most favored nation treatment and the principle of national treatment. The former principle requires the member countries to accord the most favorable tariff and regulatory treatment, given to the product of any one of the trading partners, to all other member countries at the time of import or export of like products; the latter principle requires the member countries not to accord any discriminatory treatment between imports and like domestic products. As far as the same domestic rules are applied undiscriminatingly by each member country to domestic and foreign agents, and to domestic and foreign products, there is no infringement on the two basic principles of the GATT/WTO regime. Why, then, don’t we retain the domestic rules of the game, and leave matters to be settled by international competition among alternative economic mechanisms? What is wrong with this mutual recognition approach? This question is worth asking, as it seems to be rooted in the classical dictim: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

The answer seems to depend crucially on the type of harmonization we choose for examination. It is certainly irrational and unreasonable to require the convergence of domestic rules of other countries to those domestic rules prevailing in the hegemonic country. However, this seems to be more a straw than a model of harmonization, whose sole function is to be ridiculed and shot down, than a real model to be seriously discussed. More sensible approach to harmonization is to coordinate domestic rules of the member countries by means of a cleverly designed and implemented interface mechanism, which allows idiosyncratic domestic rules to function side by side harmoniously. Just as computers of the different make can collaborate harmoniously if only they are coordinated by an appropriate interface mechanism, the domestic rules of different countries can collaborate at least in principle.

This may be easier said than done, but there seems to be essentially no real alternative to this piecemeal approach to international harmonization with a deliberately designed and collectively adopted interface mechanism.