BRICS Gathered in Geneva To Discuss a New Digital Order

PRESS RELEASE

BRICS Gathered in Geneva To Discuss a New Digital Order

Experts and antitrust officials met in Geneva to propose solutions to the challenges faced by antitrust authorities in the digital markets of the BRICS countries to find common ground between them, especially in the area of regulation of digital platforms and AI

GENEVA, Switzerland, June 10, 2024/ -- The UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Webinar on Competition law and policy approaches towards digital platforms and ecosystems in cooperation with the BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre (https://www.BRICSCompetition.org/) and the Brazilian Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) was held on June 3, in Geneva, Switzerland. The digitalization of the economy - legislature, trade, customs, logistics, etc. - is just entering its most active stage of development, itself a preparatory stage for the automation of the economy. One of the most pressing issues now, at the initial stage of digitalization, is still the streamlining and creation of a regulatory framework for future global processes. This includes the issue of antitrust regulation, both within individual countries and various interstate associations, such as the EU or BRICS. "Today, the actions of antitrust agencies in different countries remain disparate and fragmented. Lack of consensus leads to weakened enforcement, and ecosystems increase anti-competitive pressure on the market. Antitrust law is on the verge of losing its relevance and strength in the digital economy. We need some form of international agreement on the regulation of digital ecosystems, especially given the development of AI technologies,” emphasized Alexey Ivanov, Director of the BRICS Competition Law and Policy Center. As the expert explained, each BRICS jurisdiction has its own objectives with regard to competition law. There is a common core, which has been defined as consumer welfare, efficient allocation of resources and economic freedom. But so far, one of the bottlenecks in dealing with digital markets is market definition - the application of traditional market definition tools is challenged by the tendency of digital markets to be highly innovative and dynamic. The development of new definitions and indicators is one of the most important tasks of the meeting. As part of the presentation, Victor Oliveira Fernandes, Commissioner of CADE, stated that within their organization a number of new indicators have already been developed to define the platform market: for example, the ability to unilaterally impose conditions, including as a show of bargaining power, ownership of key datasets, ability to influence choice through online platform architecture, lack of transparency. Since this year, the number of BRICS member countries has grown, and further expansion is being discussed. Moreover, the association, which remained formal for a long time, is beginning to work more actively. The more active the more real contradictions and problems. Nevertheless, experts noted that there is a significant convergence among BRICS jurisdictions in recognizing the importance of certain essential standards, such as consumer welfare standards, but there are also some differences that are worth highlighting. Authorities in different countries, especially Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa, recognize other objectives, such as ensuring economic freedom or a level playing field for small and medium-sized enterprises. And these goals can somehow be translated into more elaborate legal standards for assessing abuse of dominance. Alexey Ivanov also focused the participants' attention on the fact that cooperation exactly within the framework of supranational associations can give real results in the fight against violations of fair competition rules by global monopolists in local markets. "Much more opportunities for developing countries lie in the area of cooperation. BRICS, as you know, is expanding and working in the area of developing joint enforcement actions, remedies, investigations, case reviews, because this is how you essentially balance the playing field in the fight against global companies,” Ivanov explained. The meeting was attended by a wide pool of international experts and representatives of national and international competition authorities: Victor Oliveira Fernandes, Commissioner, CADE; Rajinder Punja, Economic Director, CCI/ Representative from SAMR (tbc); Masako Wakui, Professor of Law, Kyoto University; Maria Ioannidou, Professor, Queen Mary University of London; Deni Mantzari, Associate Professor, University College of London; Alexey Ivanov, Director, BRICS Competition Law and Policy Center. The experts agreed to continue working on the creation of a harmonized system of supranational instruments of antitrust regulation. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre.   About BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre: The BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre was established in 2018 by the BRICS competition authorities. The Centre’s work is aimed at collecting and analyzing information from competition agencies, identifying best practices, but primarily at preparing recommendations and developing approaches to competition policy that reflect the interests of the development of the BRICS economies. The key mission of the BRICS Competition Centre is to advance the development agenda and strengthen the role of competition regulation in overcoming imbalances in the global economy. The Centre brings together leading international universities and independent researchers who are actively involved in the Centre’s main research projects: on global food chains, on sustainability policy and on new approaches to antitrust regulation of the digital economy. SOURCE BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre

President Jonathan, Invasion of High Court in Anambra

President Jonathan, the recent invasion of a sacred place like the Courthouse require your direct response

Sir, you and members of your executive council, the ministers in particular probably heard of the recent invasion by some offenders who stormed a High Court of Justice in an area of Anambra State, Nigeria.

Sir, as you know the court is one of the most sacred sites among public institutions where ordinary people, and persons of means go to in search of justice, protection or freedom.

In a society that deems itself as an emerging democracy , there is a deep , long and principled tradition of viewing the judiciary and its courts as sacred grounds of judgment which requires utmost protection at every second, minute, and hour.
Yet, this court in question at a time when it was in session would become adulterated by these invaders who picketed the court grounds and openly removed case files , court documents and even vandalized, as well as remove the presiding judge’s personal and official effects as well as other essentials.

Sir, it was also reported that the presiding judge’s panic call to the police received no immediate response, and worst of all, was the report that the invaders acted in the presence of the police, and that the police let go one of the invaders who had been held by a court staff.

Sir, you will agree that this is a disturbing trend as the courthouse terror, violence or thievery frightens not just the justices, judges and magistrates but the faith of the people in the courts become almost erased.
Sir, this puts the country’s already shaky democracy on delicate ground which is further compounded by the current scary political atmosphere across various regions in the nation.

Sir, you and your executive council must save the people from this type of public barbarity, and you Sir should come out publicly and for many very good reasons, personally condemn these heinous acts and assure the protection of the Court officials and documents. Please do this for God’s sake.

Sir, you must push hard against all forms of judicial-laced barbaric or evil inflicts on our young democracy. Doing this head on, through loud voice and outcry will send words of defeat against those that terrorize the courts. Also, potential invaders of the courts will learn a hard lesson, and outrageous acts from bad police officers will be stifled.

Sir, while you have not openly and vigorously supported a state police system which this writer and many others have called for , it is time for you to use executive order to put in place an exclusive body of court police and security agents around the courts and those that serve in the judiciary.

~ By John Egbeazien Oshodi, Ph.D , DABPS, FACFE, is a Forensic/Clinical Psychologist and an Assistant Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Science, North Campus, Broward College, Coconut Creek, Florida. joshodi@broward.edu