I think that it is beyond doubt that adherence to the negative comity principle', by which the interests of a foreign country are taken into account before any enforcement action is commenced under national law, would much facilitate the development of closer co-operation. It is the development of comity which provides the basis for minimising conflict between these countries such as the United States which stand fair and square on the effects doctrine' interpretation and those, notably the United Kingdom, which take a narrower view of jurisdiction. Out and out conflicts over jurisdiction may have been rare, but the fundamental objection of the United Kingdom Government, and many others, to the extraterritorial enforcement of United States anti-trust law has significantly limited the cooperation that has been possible between the two countries' competition authorities. Broadly, these will need to relate to the purpose for which information is requested, the use to which it is to be put and the sanctions to apply if there should be unauthorised disclosure. It will take time, even bilaterally, to devise safeguards in which the business community have confidence.
Meantime authorities can develop their existing co-operative arrangements.
There is a remarkable groundswell of interest in co-operation as a way of dealing with the challenges to competition authorities from the globalisation of markets and the international nature of so much of business activity. We in the European Union, for instance, are currently discussing possible alternative means of enhancing co-operation between each other. Some argue the case for international rules. Whatever the merits of the case for an international code, it is generally accepted that agreement on such a code is not a likely prospect in the foreseeable future. Discussions in international fora have shown how difficult it is to get agreement even on core principles' of competition law and policy.