Open Access Research Article
‘ABUSE OF DOMINANCE IN MARKET PLACE UNDER COMPETITION LAW’: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN INDIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND UNITED KINGDOM.
Published Paper
Article Details
‘ABUSE OF DOMINANCE IN MARKET PLACE
UNDER COMPETITION LAW’: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN INDIA, UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AND UNITED KINGDOM.
AUTHORED BY - GAUTAM GUPTA
Amity Law School Noida
ABSTRACT
The regulation of abuse of dominance
in the marketplace is a crucial aspect of competition law across various
jurisdictions, with India, the United States, and the United Kingdom presenting
diverse regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms. In India, the
Competition Act of 2002 forms the cornerstone, empowering the Competition
Commission of India (CCI) to prevent anti-competitive agreements and curb abuse
of dominant positions. Conversely, the United States relies on a comprehensive
antitrust regime comprising laws such as the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act,
enforced by two primary agencies: the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the
Department of Justice (DOJ). Similarly, the United Kingdom's competition law
landscape revolves around the Competition Act 1998, overseen by the Competition
and Markets Authority (CMA). While each jurisdiction shares the overarching
goal of fostering competitive markets and safeguarding consumer welfare,
nuances emerge in their approaches to defining dominance, identifying abusive
conduct, conducting investigations, and prescribing remedies.
In India, dominance is typically
assessed based on market shares and the ability to operate independently of
competitive forces, with the CCI empowered to penalize abuse, including unfair
pricing, discriminatory treatment, and exclusionary practices. Conversely, the
United States emphasizes preventing harm to competition itself, with a focus on
conduct rather than market share alone. The FTC and DOJ employ a range of
tools, including consent decrees, divestitures, and injunctions, to address
abusive behavior and restore competitive conditions. In the UK, the CMA
scrutinizes a broad spectrum of anti-competitive practices, leveraging
investigative powers to gather evidence and enforce remedies like fines and
behavioral injunctions. Despite disparities in legal frameworks and enforcement
strategies, these jurisdictions share common goals of promoting competition and
consumer welfare, offering valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners
aiming to refine competition law regimes and foster globally competitive markets.
KEY WORDS : Competitive Market, Federal,
Trade, Investigation, Dominance, Unhealthy Competition, Abuse, Power, etc.
INTRODUCTION
The possibility of the idea of
"abuse" is extremely evenhanded as it connects with the way of
behaving of the endeavor putting itself into the predominant situation to
impact the construction of a market. This includes the presence of the predominant
substance available and the level of contest is debilitated by the utilization
of strategies embraced by the element that are not quite the same as the for
the most part typical circumstances in the competitionof item or administration
exchanges. This has an impact that obstructs the support of a solid level of
rivalry that actually exists on the lookout and the development of such
contest. The overall thought of keeping a guideline or a regulation for the competition
of duties available is that a syndication circumstance isn't in competition to
public government assistance strategy, yet to involve a similar state wherein
it works to serve all its true capacity. what's more, before genuine
contenders. The law doesn't deny organizations from turning into the "dominant"
player or having a "dominant" position. There is no actual control
that keeps the organization from becoming prevailing or prevalent. The moral
and objective of the Law is to disallow the "abuse" of the
predominant position. The law, as far as it matters for its, disallows
"the abuse of dominant position. This is the ethical behind the Law, which
is correct and is a stage towards a really worldwide and liberal economy.
"Abrogating" or
"powerful" are the implications of the word reference for the expression
"dominance". In this sense, savage means then again to control the
abuse to obtain closes or monetary benefits. A firm that keeps a
"dominant" position is just conceivable assuming it can act freely or
independently, unafraid of contenders, clients, providers and end buyers. The
market that holds the predominant force of the organization permits you to
control the value as per your desires or your necessities. [1]This
will empower them to sell lower quality items or administrations or development
costs that are lower than they really exist in a cutthroat market. Abuse of
dominance is a significant idea as of late. It is said to happen when a
gathering of organizations or a solitary organization involves its prevailing
situation in the important market in a manipulative way. In this manner, to
make the market fair, the idea of maltreatment of predominance was presented in
the Competition Act, 2002. Section 4 of the demonstration explicitly discusses
maltreatment of prevailing position.[2] It
is additionally viewed as a global peculiarity and is seen in practically
undeniably created and agricultural nations. Each state has its own arrangement
of rules and guidelines to pause and authorize the maltreatment of prevailing
position. Hence, halting this unreasonable practice in the serious market is
essential. This undertaking will assist with understanding the correlation of
the regulations connecting with the maltreatment of strength in 3 distinct
nations.
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT
OF ABUSE OF DOMINANCE
While the expression
"Renaissance" initially alluded to a social development that
described the period between the fourteenth and seventeenth hundreds of years,
it likewise alluded to a verifiable age that impacted different parts of day to
day existence, including exchange and contest. During this time of the
Renaissance, particularly from the sixteenth 100 years, global exchange started
to create. Albeit a lot of this exchange and the subsequent abundance was
unlawful, the specialists felt that there was a need to direct exchange to make
a feeling of reasonableness and free contest. The trailblazer of current patent
regulations, known as the Imposing business model Resolution, was supported by
the Britain's Parliament in 1623. Before the Imposing business model Rule,
patent regulations were liable to maltreatment by the specialists. History
uncovers that it was realized that Elizabeth I had conceded licenses for normal
family things like salt and starch, making a syndication on needs. In the years
that followed, a few endeavors were made to separate syndications and establish
regulations that advanced contest and deregulation. Yet, the people who meant
well frequently found that the vendors who kept up with the syndications had
the sort of abundance they had purchased in a special situation with the
specialists. Different advancements that have at last prompted present day
contest regulation incorporate exchange limitation regulations. As the term
recommends, business control keeps parties from undertaking or doing
comparative exercises in an equal resistance. Contest regulation is currently
commonly acknowledged as founded on the Sherman Act (1890) and the Clayton Act
(1914), both laid out in the US. Around then, European nations had various
types of rules and regulations administering syndications and rivalry, yet
different turns of events, especially after WWII and the fall of the Berlin
Wall in 1990, are represented by the Sherman and Clayton Acts. [3]With
the fast improvement of global exchange the 21st century years,
rivalry regulations and antitrust regulations must be kept up with. It was
after World War I that different nations started to execute rivalry approaches
like those of the US. Controllers of rivalry have been set up to guarantee
consistence with antitrust and contest regulations and arrangements. After World
War II, the Partners set up guidelines to break the cartels and syndications
that had shaped during the conflict. Around then, it was for the most part
focused on Germany and Japan. On account of Germany, it was expected that huge
industry cartels would be controlled to give the Nazi system absolute financial
control of the country. With Japan, large organizations were at hotbed of
nepotism coming about in multi-industry aggregates that controlled the Japanese
economy. Notwithstanding, the acquiescence of Germany and Japan to partnered
powers toward the finish of WWII permitted the utilization of stricter
controls, which depended on the rule of those utilized in the Unified States.
In the US, the expression "antitrust" is most regularly used to
allude to regulations disallowing the arrangement of cartels, otherwise called
"business trusts". [4]Albeit
antitrust regulations are by and large separate from customer security
regulations, they furnish purchasers with a proportion of insurance against
deceitful providers trying to consume a market area. Consolidations and
acquisitions go through a thorough determination process as per antitrust and
rivalry regulations preceding getting endorsement. Since achieving Freedom in
1947, India, for the majority of 50 years from that point, took on and followed
arrangements containing what are known as Order and-Control regulations, rules,
guidelines and leader orders. The competition law of India, specifically, the
Syndications and Prohibitive Exchange Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act) was one
such. It was in 1991 that boundless monetary changes were embraced and,
subsequently, the order and control economy started to develop into a more open
market economy. As in numerous nations, financial advancement has grabbed hold
in India and the requirement for a powerful contest system has additionally
been perceived. The competition regulation in India was set off by Articles 38
and 39 of the Constitution of India. These Articles are a piece of the Mandate
Standards of State Strategy. Fixing on the Order Standards, the main Indian
regulation on contest was proclaimed in 1969and was dedicated the Imposing
business models and Prohibitive Exchange Practices, 1969 (MRTP Act). Articles
38 and 39 of the Constitution of India command, entomb alia, that the State
advance the prosperity of individuals by ensuring and safeguarding as
successfully as conceivable a social request in which social, financial, and
civil rights illuminate all establishments of public life and the state,
specifically, will coordinate its strategy towards security.
1. That the possession and control of
the material assets of the local area be better circulated in the help of the
benefit of everyone; is
2. That the working of the monetary
framework doesn't prompt a centralization of riches and method for creation to
the inconvenience of all.
In October 1999, the Indian
government selected a significant level board of trustees on rivalry strategy
and contest regulation to characterize a contemporary rivalry regulation for
the country, in accordance with worldwide turns of events, and to suggest an
official structure, which might involve another regulation or fitting changes
to the MRTP Act. The Commission introduced its Competition Strategy report to
the public authority in May 2000. The draft rivalry regulation was drafted and
introduced to the public authority in November 2000. After certain refinements,
following broad conferences and conversations with every closely involved
individual, the Parliament passed in December 2002 the new regulation, in
particular, the Competition Act, 2002.[5]
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
·
COMPETITION LAWS IN UNITED KINGDOM
In the Unified Realm a few
regulations have been established to direct buyer security, for example, the
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Uncalled for Terms in
Consumer Contract Guidelines 1999, and Unfair Contract terms Bill. This large
number of regulations complete the prerequisites of the European Association
Mandates on Buyer Protection. In spite of the fact that instances of
infringement of customer freedoms are predominantly the consequence of bad
behavior or agreements, the advancement of the legal and global methodology has
stretched out the extent of utilization to criminal responsibility. As
indicated by Article 2 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directives of 2005
and as deciphered by the European Official courtroom, a typical buyer is an
ordinarily educated, sensibly mindful and informed individual. This definition
is given considering social, social and etymological elements. In the Unified
Realm, two arrangements of regulations work at the same time. In the event that
an English organization stands firm on a prevailing foothold in the UK market,
the arrangements of Section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 apply; though
assuming the UK organization stands firm on a predominant footing on a market
which reaches out to other EU part expresses, the arrangements inside
Workmanship 82 of the EU Settlement apply.
The EU regulation has been embraced
into the U.K regulation, so the prerequisites that should be laid out for both
are by and large something similar. The homegrown rivalry regulation in the
U.K. has gone through huge changes subsequent to passing of the Competition
Act, 1998 which has come into force on Walk 1, 2000. This Act has been ordered
keeping considering the arrangements of articles 81 and 82 of the EC
Settlement. Section 1 of the Competition Act, 1998 is separated into 5 parts.
Section I manages Arrangements (counting disallowance of understanding); Part
II connects with maltreatment of prevailing position; Part III focuses on
examination and implementation; Section IV arrangements with Contest Commission
and Requests; Section V commits on random matters. There are a few Timetables
to the Demonstration. Wide powers are given to the Workplace of Fair Exchanging
(OFT) in regards to supply of data, leading on-the-spot examinations and burden
of fines. The Demonstration requires the OFT and the sectoral controllers to
distribute direction with respect to how they well apply the Demonstration
practically speaking. The Enterprise Act, 2002 added further changes to the
U.K.
Rivalry Regulation including the presentation
of another consolidation control system, another arrangement of market
examination references, the foundation of a criminal cartel offense and the
chance of preclusion of overseers of organizations that encroach the competitionregulation.
Further changes were presented on the CompetitionAct, 1998 considering the use
of the E.C. Modernization Guideline by the Competition Act, 1998 and different
Authorizations (Revision) Guidelines, 2004. The arrangements of the Competition
Act, 1998 are significantly demonstrated on Articles 81 and 82 of the EC
Settlement.[6]
·
COMPETITION LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
United States of America contest
regulation is ordinarily followed to the entry of the Sherman Act in 1890,
albeit a couple of state antitrust regulations went before it and the actual
demonstration was something of a codification of the precedent-based
regulation. The severe convention of early custom-based regulation nullifying
all limitations of exchange was winning in the U.S.A. until the turn of the
hundred years. The convention has been loosened up considering the public
interest in allowing specific defensive pledges. The proper standards
concerning the circumstances for limitation on the opportunity of agreement
were maintained by both English and American Courts until the presentation of
the advanced perspective on the legitimacy of settlement on the trial of
sensibility of the restraint. All mixes or arrangements which absurdly stifle
contest or retrain exchange are unlawful and void at precedent-based regulation
as against public strategy paying little heed to proclaimed reason.
The government regulation
interestingly regarding the matter of imposing business models and unlawful
limitation or exchange epitomized in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890). The
Congress might make special cases for the arrangements of the Demonstration by
setting the hardware of cost fixing in the possession of public offices, or by
singling out for discrete treatment a specific industry and in this way
eliminating the punishments of the Demonstration, or it might suspend the tasks
of the Demonstration inside the endorsed impediments for a brief time or for
all time; yet such exception isn't to be enhanced by the sensible intendment of
its language The Demonstration is both corrective and medicinal for harms in
nature. The principal point of the Sherman Hostile to Believe Act is the
protection of an arrangement of free cutthroat financial undertaking and the
assurance of people in general against the disasters occurrence to syndications
and agreements or mixes tending straightforwardly toward irrational concealment
or restrictions of between state exchange or commerce. The force of the State
lawmaking bodies to manage hostile to trust topic and to deny unlawful blends
to forestall contest and in limitation of exchange, and to preclude and rebuff
imposing business models has been maintained by the court.
The Clayton Act, 1914 makes it
unlawful for any individual participated in business to rent or sell
merchandise, hardware, and so on condition, understanding or understanding that
the resident or buyer will not utilize or bargain in products or hardware of a
contender or dealer or lessor where the impact of rivalry might be
significantly to diminish contest or will more often than not make a
syndication.[7] The
Clayton Act and the Sherman Act are discrete demonstrations and remain so
disregarding certain provisions of Clayton Act, which allude to the both. The
Clayton Act enhancing the Sherman Act and different other government
resolutions having a similar universally useful as the Sherman Act, however
intended to arrive at restrictions on between state exchange or business not
covered by the Sherman Act, have occasionally been sanctioned by the Congress.[8]
·
COMPETITION LAWS IN INDIA
Dominant ventures, right off the bat,
position, for example, it empowers it to work free of serious powers created by
its adversaries. This is significant on the grounds that sound rivalry between
contenders advances efficiency, distributes effectiveness gains and improves
purchaser excess. For instance, in the event that an organization acts to make
obstructions to section, remove existing contenders, control creation or costs,
there are concerns. Furthermore, the space perspective gave in clarification (a)
(ii) of section 4 of the Demonstration concerns the capacity of a firm to
impact its rivals or shoppers or the pertinent market. As it were, this is a
more prominent power wherein an organization can uninhibitedly embrace the
evaluating or non-duty procedure to conquer the descending tension on
contenders' salaries, or to catch or interface the customer or establish a
serious climate. a market climate that would deter the latest goal, both as far
as contending organizations and contending products. The assurance of the
predominant position relies upon two fundamental factors: the piece of the pie
and the states of passage. It means a lot to remember that to accomplish a
prevailing situation through genuine means, for instance through item
development, predominant creation or dissemination procedures or expanded
promoting endeavors. The Competition Commission of India has perceived specific
circumstances while deciding the arrangements prevailing status according to
area 19 of the Competition Act. The assurance of the predominant situation
through portions of the overall industry, deals information and dynamic offers.
Yet, as a rule the market still up in the air based on the useful qualities of
the items in view of the buyer conduct model. Section 19 basically accentuates
the obligation of the Competition Commission to consider these angles while
managing variables of predominant position. This permits us to presume that we
consider these vital stages to lay out whether an organization has a
predominant position and misuses it-
1. Characterizing the important
market.
2. Surveying Assess the strength of the market
to decide whether the organization has huge power.
3. Consider whether the direct of the endeavor
adds up to abuse.
These are the couple of sorts of
"maltreatment of prevailing position" circumstance dissected as
under-
1. Savage Valuing According to section
4(b) of the Demonstration it makes sense of how the training with which the
offer of merchandise or the arrangement of administrations is done at a cost
rate lower than the expense cost to decrease rivalry or dispose of contenders.
2. Refusal to supply-This training
includes intentionally keeping the inventory of the item or administration
hence expanding the interest for itself and subsequently constraining clients
to buy the item or administration at a more exorbitant cost, consequently
controlling the client's requirements . This refusal adversely affects the
condition of fair rivalry in the significant market.
3. Restricting Inventory The act of
restricted supply of results of sumptuous and valuable nature hence enjoying
the benefit of raising the value in view of its shortage. The fitting model for
this is the precious stone market, however huge amounts of them are in kept
away, just a little amount is simply cleaned and made accessible to the
clients, subsequently bringing about its excessive cost.[9]
4. Obstructions to passage or refusal
of the market survey - Boundaries to section incorporates patent as well as
essential first mover benefits.
The Competition Act gives in area 4
to the denial of maltreatment of predominant position: Section 4: Maltreatment
of Prevailing Position:[10]
(1) No venture will manhandle its
predominant position.
(2)There will be a maltreatment of
prevailing situation under sub-area (1), if a venture, — a)directly or in a
roundabout way, forces unjustifiable or prejudicial — (I) condition in buy or
offer of labor and products; or (ii) cost in buy or deal (counting savage cost)
of merchandise or administration; or b) limits
or confines - (I) creation of products or arrangement of administrations or
market therefor; or (ii) specialized or logical advancement connecting with
labor and products to the bias of buyers; or c)indulges by and by or works on
bringing about forswearing of market access; or d) makes finish of agreements subject to acknowledgment by different
gatherings of valuable commitments which, by their temperament or as per
business utilization, have no association with the subject of such agreements;
or e) uses its prevailing situation
in one significant market to go into, or safeguard, other applicable market.
Clarification .
For the reasons for this section, the
articulation (a) "predominant position" signifies a place of
solidarity, delighted in by a venture, in the significant market, in India,
which empowers it to-(I) work freely of cutthroat powers winning in the
pertinent market; or (ii) influence its rivals or shoppers or the pertinent
market in support of its; (b) "savage cost" signifies the offer of merchandise
or arrangement of administrations, at a value which is underneath the expense,
as not set in stone by guidelines, of creation of the products or arrangement
of administrations, so as to decrease rivalry or dispense with the contenders.
The arrangement of the Competition Act according to maltreatment of predominant
position obviously makes sense of over that no endeavor or gathering will
mishandle its prevailing position. The predominant position is cleared up in
the clarification for section 4 as a place of solidarity in the pertinent
market in India. The representations are comprehensive and thorough.
The clarification in Section 4 raises
numerous ways of utilizing such a power. These conceivable outcomes can be
plainly analyzed independently or in mix, contingent upon every one of current
realities of the case. The Clarification to section 4(2) (a) makes them safe
from unjustifiable or biased exchanging circumstances or uncalled for or
prejudicial costs rate or savage evaluating as alluded in area 4(2) (a) (I) and
(ii), getting ready out those practices which are prevailing in nature, from
being alluded as an "maltreatment of a predominant position" to meet
rivalry. [11]On the
reason for this contention made by the endeavors who are engaged with the competition
and reformulating their exchange practice methodologies or plans to stick to
request deal of rivals in a market as it develops, there is no „abuse? by any
of the endeavor.
They just mirror the development of
the market circumstance. for instance, on the off chance that the pace of an
item falls available, for non-invalid motivations to the activity of an
organization, a decrease of the pace of the item by this organization to match
its rate to the new rate can't be qualified as Uncalled for Rating or Savage
Cost. This clarification could be utilized as a safeguard that might be
involved by an authority for manhandling a prevailing situation under section
4(2) (a). It ought to be noticed that it isn't accessible in that frame of mind
of claims of practices set out in area 4(2) (b) to (e).
CONCLUSION
Competition law is a perplexing
combination of regulative, monetary and regulatory proportions of a nation
intended to cultivate contest in the economy. Since rivalry is viewed as
fundamental for financial turn of events, contest regulation tries to safeguard
this seriousness in the economy. The hypothesis behind contest regulation is
the beneficial outcome of rivalry available of an economy, going about as an
insurance against the abuse of financial power. The connection between contest
regulation and monetary improvement underscored again and again appears to be
fairly certain and the requirement for a rivalry regulation is by all accounts
on the plan. The use of rivalry regulation by the counteraction of against
serious arrangements, the preclusion of maltreatment of predominance by
organizations and the guideline of blends that could hurt contest in the
economy consequently appear to be urgent for India. It ought not be failed to
remember that the Indian Parliament established the Opposition Act, 2002. The
prelude and the assertion of the reasons and thought processes of the law
likewise demonstrate that wide monetary improvement goals were considered when
the law was passed. During the previous years, the quantity of wards with a
contest regulation has detonated from roughly 25, of which not many were
genuinely implemented, to nearly 100 today. As financial movement progressively
rises above public lines and purviews applying contest regulation to organizations
and acting external their boundaries, accomplishing essentially a healthy level
of consistency and union in utilization of rivalry law is significant. Albeit
the fundamental standards of contest regulation continue as before, the goals
or results can't be no different for all locales. Generally, a dynamic
acknowledgment of the targets of contest strategy would be the solution to a
powerful rivalry regulation system in non-industrial nations. Albeit the
execution of rivalry regulation, even toward the start of financial turn of
events, isn't awful in itself, its visually impaired execution on the way taken
by created nations can annihilate its actual points. In this manner, contest
regulation is a mind boggling making of legislators that the Indian Government
and the Opposition Commission ought to find opportunity to figure out
considering the particular necessities and prerequisites of the Indian economy
and apply it as needs be.
REFRENCES
·
Sneha
Singh & Syed Ahmed, Abuse Of Dominant Position Academike (2015),
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/perfect-competition-and-abuse-of-dominant-position/
(Accessed on Sep 30, 2019).
·
In
Re Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd v. Mahananadi Coalfields Ltd.
And Coal India Ltd ., 2013 Comp LR 910 (CCI) : MANU/CO/0068/2013.
·
Rini
Violet Tigga, The Critical Analysis of The Competition Law In India: With
Special Reference to the Abuse Of Dominant Position, International Journal of
Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies: ISSN:2348- 8212:Volume 4 Issue 2, pp 178.
·
Fox
Eleanor, ‘World competition law- Conflicts, Convergence, Cooperation’
Competition Law Today; Concepts, Issues, and Law in Practice, Oxford University
Press, (2007), pp. 224-249.
·
https://lawfaculty.du.ac.in/userfiles/downloads/LLBCM/IVth%20Term_Competition%20Law_LB4033_2023.pdf
[2] Pradeep
S. Mehta, ?Competition & Regulation in India?, accessed at
ww.cuts-ccier.org
[3] Middleton,
K, ‘The Americanization of UK competition law’ 2003 SL PQ 27
[4] William
Blumenthal, ?Merger analysis under the US Antitrust Laws, accessed via www.kslaw.com
[5] 21Marsden,
P and Whelan, P, ‘“Consumer Detriment” and its Application in EC and UK
Competition Law’ [2007] ECLR 569.
[6] DG
Competition Discussion Paper on the Application of EC Article 82 to
Exclusionary Abuses, December 2005
[7] Herbert
Hovenkamp, ?Clayton Act?, accessed via www.enotes.com
[8] A.
Jones and J. Davies, “Merger control and the public interest: balancing EU and
national law in the protectionist debate”, [2014] 10(3) European Competition
Journal 453.
[9] Ateliers
Paris, Dominant position - Institute of Competition Law Concurrences.com
(2017),
http://www.concurrences.com/en/droit-de-la-concurrence/glossary-of-competition-terms/Dominant-position
(accessed on Sep 28, 2019).
Article Information
‘ABUSE OF DOMINANCE IN MARKET PLACE UNDER COMPETITION LAW’: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN INDIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND UNITED KINGDOM.
Authors: GAUTAM GUPTA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/18
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.