Skip to main content
Log in

Concerted Practices and the Presence of Obligations: Joint Action in Competition Law and Social Philosophy

  • Published:
Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers whether, and if so how, the modelling of joint action in social philosophy – principally in the work of Margaret Gilbert and Michael Bratman – might assist in understanding and applying the concept of concerted practices in European competition law. More specifically, the paper focuses on a well-known difficulty in the application of that concept, namely, distinguishing between concerted practice and rational or intelligent adaptation in oligopolistic markets. The paper argues that although Bratman’s model of joint action is more psychologically plausible and phenomenologically resonant, its less demanding character also makes it less useful than Gilbert’s in our understanding of the legal concept of concerted practice and in dealing with the above difficulty. The paper proceeds in two parts: first, a discussion of the concept of concerted practices in European competition law; and second, a discussion of Gilbert and Bratman’s models of joint action, including a comparative assessment of their ability to provide an evidentiary target and an evidentiary platform for concerted practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Treaties

  • Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, Rome, 1958

  • Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Lisbon, 2009

Cases

  • Ahlström Osakeyhito and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-1307; [1993] 4 CMLR 407

  • Com (2002) OJ L100/1, Recital 98 – Graphite electrodes

  • Compagnie Royal Asturienne des Mines and Rheinzink v Commission, Cases 29-30/83 [1984] ECR 1679; [1985] 1 CMLR 688

  • Cooperative vereniging Suiker Unie UA v Commission [1975] ECR 1916; [1976] 1 CMLR 405

  • Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Associated v. United States 234 U.S. 600 (1914)

  • ICI and Others v Commission (Dyestuffs) Cases 48-57/69 [1972] ECR 619; CMLR 557

  • Polypropylene [1986] OJ L230/1; [1988] 4 CMLR 347

Books and Articles

  • Alonso, F, `Shared Intention, Reliance and Interpersonal Obligations', Ethics 119 (2009): 444–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, O, Conceptual Foundations of Antitrust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

  • Black, O, `Communication, Concerted Practices and the Oligopoly Problem', European Competition Journal 1 (2005): 341–346.

  • Bratman, M, `Shared Cooperative Activity', The Philosophical Review 101(2) (1992): 327–341

  • Bratman, M, `Shared Intention', Ethics 104 (1993): 97–113.

  • Bratman, M. Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bratman, M, `Modest Sociality and the Distinctiveness of Intention', Philosophical Studies 133 (2009): 149–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faull, J, and Nipkay, A (eds.), The EC Law of Competition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

  • Gerber, D, Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).

  • Gilbert, M, `Walking Together: A Paradigmatic Social Phenomenon', Midwest Studies in Philosophy 15 (1990): 1–14.

  • Gilbert, M, Theory of Political Obligation: Membership, Commitment, and the Bonds of Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006).

  • Gilbert, M, `Two Approaches to Shared Intention: An Essay in the Philosophy of Social Phenomena', Analyse & Kritik 30 (2008): 483–514.

  • Goyder, DG, EC Competition Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4th ed., 2003).

  • Hirsch, G, Montag, F, and Sacker, DJ (eds.), Competition Law: European Community Practice and Procedure (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008).

  • Jones, A, and Sufrin, B, EC Competition Law: Text, Cases and Materials (2nd ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

  • Korah, V (ed.), Competition Laws of the European Community (2nd ed.) (New Providence: Matthew Bender & Co, 2009).

  • Kutz, C, `Acting Together', Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61(1) (2000): 1–31

  • Pacherie, E, and Dokic, J, `From Mirror Neurons to Joint Actions', Cognitive Systems Research 7 (2006): 101–112.

  • Page, W, `Communication and Concerted Action', Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 38 (2007): 405–460.

  • Page, W, `The Gary Dinners and the Meaning of Concerted Action', Southern Methodist University Law Review 62 (2009): 597–620.

  • Tomasello, M, Carpenter, M, Call, J, Behne, T, and Moll, H, ‘Understanding and Sharing Intentions: The Origins of Cultural Cognition’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2005): 675–691.

  • Vaughan, D, Lee, S, Kennelly, B, and Riches, P, EU Competition Law: General Principles (Richmond, UK: Richmond, 2006).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maksymilian Del Mar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Del Mar, M. Concerted Practices and the Presence of Obligations: Joint Action in Competition Law and Social Philosophy. Law and Philos 30, 105–140 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-010-9087-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-010-9087-5

Keywords

Navigation