National security considerations are increasingly shaping the economic and regulatory environment in which competition authorities operate. As their scope expands across sectors and policy domains, their interaction with competition enforcement is likely to become more frequent and complex. This does not require a redefinition of competition law, but it does require clarity about its boundaries and application. Several conclusions emerge from this analysis:
The central analytical test is whether national security concerns can be operationalised within competition law. Where such concerns can be expressed as competition-relevant effects, they can be assessed within established frameworks; where they cannot, they fall outside the scope of competition enforcement and should be addressed through appropriate institutional mechanisms.
Maintaining clear institutional boundaries and analytical discipline is essential. Competition authorities are best placed to assess conduct and competitive effects using economically grounded, evidence-based analysis, while broader geopolitical and security trade-offs are more appropriately addressed by governments and specialised bodies.
National security considerations may affect the assessment of competitive constraints. This assessment must remain grounded in market realities, including legal, regulatory and policy conditions that shape which firms can compete in practice, rather than on abstract or global notions of competition.
National security considerations can also be reflected in the assessment of anticompetitive effects. Concerns relating to concentration, foreclosure, reduced supplier diversity, dependency and diminished innovation can be assessed within established competition frameworks, including across price and non-price dimensions such as resilience, reliability and technological diversity.
Efficiency and pro-competitive justification claims require rigorous and verifiable evidence. Arguments framed in terms of resilience, technological capability, or strategic autonomy must be demonstrated to be necessary, proportionate and causally linked to competition-relevant benefits and should be treated with caution, particularly where such claims risk being invoked strategically.
Remedy design must remain anchored in restoring competition. While national security considerations may affect feasibility and implementation, including in relation to ownership, control and regulatory approval, they do not alter the objective of preserving or restoring effective competition and must be assessed within the same evidence-based analytical framework and, where relevant, in coordination with parallel national security processes.