National security considerations are becoming increasingly prominent in economic policymaking, expanding beyond defence to include economic security, security of supply, resilience, technological capability, sovereignty and strategic autonomy.1 They are therefore arising more frequently in competition enforcement across a widening range of sectors.
This raises a central question for competition authorities: under what conditions can national security concerns be assessed within competition law frameworks? The analysis points to several key considerations:
Competition can support national security objectives. Competitive and diversified markets may strengthen resilience, reduce dependency on single suppliers, support innovation and enhance long-term productivity and adaptability in strategically significant sectors.
Many security-related concerns can be addressed using existing competition tools. Where issues such as dependency, reduced supplier diversity, barriers to entry, foreclosure or diminished innovation can be expressed as competition-relevant effects, they fall within established analytical frameworks.
National security considerations may arise across different stages of competition analysis. They may affect the assessment of competitive constraints, competitive effects, efficiencies and remedies, where they can be expressed as competition-relevant effects, across merger control, co‑ordinated conduct and unilateral conduct, without altering the underlying legal standards.
A boundary exists between competition-relevant effects and broader strategic considerations. Where concerns rely on geopolitical assessments, intelligence inputs or broader policy objectives, they cannot be meaningfully assessed within competition analysis and instead fall within the remit of governments or specialised bodies with the relevant expertise and accountability.
National security arguments may be invoked strategically in enforcement. Authorities may face pressure to accommodate claims that fall outside their analytical remit or are not supported by verifiable efficiencies, with potential implications for the consistency and effectiveness of enforcement.
Maintaining analytical discipline is essential to effective and predictable enforcement. A consistent focus on economically assessable effects supports legal predictability and preserves the coherence of competition analysis. Beyond enforcement, authorities can also contribute through enforcement discretion, advocacy, guidance and institutional co-ordination, helping achieve security objectives while minimising distortions to competition.