Law and Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 105–140 | Cite as

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

Article

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

Treaties

  1. Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, Rome, 1958Google Scholar
  2. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Lisbon, 2009Google Scholar

Cases

  1. Ahlström Osakeyhito and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-1307; [1993] 4 CMLR 407Google Scholar
  2. Com (2002) OJ L100/1, Recital 98 – Graphite electrodes Google Scholar
  3. Compagnie Royal Asturienne des Mines and Rheinzink v Commission, Cases 29-30/83 [1984] ECR 1679; [1985] 1 CMLR 688Google Scholar
  4. Cooperative vereniging Suiker Unie UA v Commission [1975] ECR 1916; [1976] 1 CMLR 405Google Scholar
  5. Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Associated v. United States 234 U.S. 600 (1914)Google Scholar
  6. ICI and Others v Commission (Dyestuffs) Cases 48-57/69 [1972] ECR 619; CMLR 557Google Scholar
  7. Polypropylene [1986] OJ L230/1; [1988] 4 CMLR 347Google Scholar

Books and Articles

  1. Alonso, F, `Shared Intention, Reliance and Interpersonal Obligations', Ethics 119 (2009): 444–475Google Scholar
  2. Black, O, Conceptual Foundations of Antitrust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
  3. Black, O, `Communication, Concerted Practices and the Oligopoly Problem', European Competition Journal 1 (2005): 341–346.Google Scholar
  4. Bratman, M, `Shared Cooperative Activity', The Philosophical Review 101(2) (1992): 327–341Google Scholar
  5. Bratman, M, `Shared Intention', Ethics 104 (1993): 97–113.Google Scholar
  6. Bratman, M. Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bratman, M, `Modest Sociality and the Distinctiveness of Intention', Philosophical Studies 133 (2009): 149–165.Google Scholar
  8. Faull, J, and Nipkay, A (eds.), The EC Law of Competition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
  9. Gerber, D, Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert, M, `Walking Together: A Paradigmatic Social Phenomenon', Midwest Studies in Philosophy 15 (1990): 1–14.Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, M, Theory of Political Obligation: Membership, Commitment, and the Bonds of Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006).Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert, M, `Two Approaches to Shared Intention: An Essay in the Philosophy of Social Phenomena', Analyse & Kritik 30 (2008): 483–514.Google Scholar
  13. Goyder, DG, EC Competition Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4th ed., 2003).Google Scholar
  14. Hirsch, G, Montag, F, and Sacker, DJ (eds.), Competition Law: European Community Practice and Procedure (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008).Google Scholar
  15. Jones, A, and Sufrin, B, EC Competition Law: Text, Cases and Materials (2nd ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
  16. Korah, V (ed.), Competition Laws of the European Community (2nd ed.) (New Providence: Matthew Bender & Co, 2009).Google Scholar
  17. Kutz, C, `Acting Together', Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61(1) (2000): 1–31Google Scholar
  18. Pacherie, E, and Dokic, J, `From Mirror Neurons to Joint Actions', Cognitive Systems Research 7 (2006): 101–112.Google Scholar
  19. Page, W, `Communication and Concerted Action', Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 38 (2007): 405–460.Google Scholar
  20. Page, W, `The Gary Dinners and the Meaning of Concerted Action', Southern Methodist University Law Review 62 (2009): 597–620.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Vaughan, D, Lee, S, Kennelly, B, and Riches, P, EU Competition Law: General Principles (Richmond, UK: Richmond, 2006).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations