Plan-Like Architectures

  • Marcelo Corrales CompagnucciEmail author
Part of the Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation book series (PLBI)


After the previous considerations based on the economic analysis of law, the backbone of the theoretical framework of this work is substantiated in the theory submitted by Scott Shapiro in his book Legality (2011) where he adopts Michael Bratman’s suggestion that we are all “planning agents.”


  1. Agogue M, Ystrom A, Le Masson P (2012) Rethinking the role of intermediaries as an architect of collective exploration and creation of knowledge in open innovation. Int J Innov Manag 7(2):1–31Google Scholar
  2. Alonso F (2008) Shared intention, Reliance, and interpersonal obligations: an inquiry into the metaphysics and interpersonal normativity of shared agency. A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Philosophy and the committee on graduate studies of Stanford University in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, p 78Google Scholar
  3. Antikainen M (2011) Towards collaborative open innovation communities. In: Chauvel D (ed) Leading issues in innovation research, vol 1. Academic Publishing International Ltd., Reading, p 189Google Scholar
  4. Audi R (1973) Intending. J Philos 70:387–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin J (1832) The province of jurisprudence determined. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Austin J (1869) Lectures on jurisprudence on the philosophy of positive law, 3rd edn. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Beardley M (1978) Intending. In: Goldman A, Jaegwon K (eds) Values and morals: essays in honor of William Frankena, Charles Stevenson and Richard Brandt. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. Berns S (1993) Concise jurisprudence. The Federation Press, Annandale, p 149Google Scholar
  9. Bianco P, Lewis G, Merson P (2008) Service level agreements in service-oriented architecture environments. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Software Engineering Institute, p 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bontekoe R (2004) Judicial discretion and right answers. In: Soeteman A (ed) Proceedings of the 20th IVR World Congress Pluralism and Law, Amsterdam, vol 4, Legal Reasoning. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart (2001), p 24Google Scholar
  11. Boudriga N (2009) Security of mobile communications. Auerbach Publications (CRC Press), Boca Ratón, pp 21–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bratman M (1984) Two faces of intention. Philos Rev 93(3):375–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bratman M (1992) Shared cooperative activity. Philos Rev 101(2):327–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bratman M (1999) Intentions, plans, and practical reason, The Davis Hume Series, Philosophy and Cognitive Science Reissues. CSLI Publications, California, pp 1–2Google Scholar
  15. Bratman M (2001) Taking plans seriously. In: Millgram E (ed) Varieties of practical reason. The MIT Press, Cambridge, p 203Google Scholar
  16. Bratman M (2013) Shared Agency, The Science Network (TSN), Stanford University. Accessed 10 May 2019
  17. Bratman M (2014a) Shared agency: a planning theory of acting together. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bratman (2014b) Acting and thinking together, Routledge Lecture in Philosophy, University of Cambridge Accessed 10 May 2019
  19. Bridgeman C (2009) Contracts as plans. Univ Illinois Law Rev 2009(2):343Google Scholar
  20. Canale D (2013) Looking for the nature of law: on Shapiro’s challenge. In: Canale D, Tuzet G (eds) The planning theory of law: a critical reading, law and philosophy library, vol 100. Springer, Dordrecht, p 19Google Scholar
  21. Cavoukian A (2012) Operationalizing privacy by design: a guide to implementing strong privacy practices, PhD. Accessed 10 May 2019
  22. Churchland P (1970) The logical character of action-explanations. Philos Rev 79:214–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coleman J (1998) Foundations of social theory. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Coleman J (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Supplement: organizations and institutions: sociological and economic approaches to the analysis of social structure. Am J Sociol 94:95–120 The University of Chicago PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Craig J (2009) Raz and his critics: a defense of Razian authority, Master Thesis, Georgia State University. Accessed 10 May 2019
  26. Culver K (1999) (ed) Readings in the philosophy of law. Broadview Press Ltd., Ontario, p 183Google Scholar
  27. Dalziel M, Parjanen S (2012) Measuring the impact of innovation intermediaries: a case study of Tekes. In: Melkas H, Harmaakorpi V (eds) Practice-based innovation: insights, applications and policy implications. Springer, Berlin, p 120Google Scholar
  28. Darian-Smith E (2013) Laws and societies in global contexts: contemporary approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 136–137Google Scholar
  29. Dworkin R (1975) Hard cases. Harv Law Rev 88(6):1057–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dworkin R (1986) Law’s empire. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Dworkin R (1982) Law as interpretation. Crit Inq Chic J 9(1):182Google Scholar
  32. Dworkin R (1996a) How law is like literature. In: Ledwon L (ed) Law and literature: text and theory. Garland Publishing, New York, pp 29–46Google Scholar
  33. Dworkin R (1996) Freedom’s law: the moral reading of the American Constitution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 10Google Scholar
  34. Easterbrook F (1994) Text, history, and structure in statutory interpretation. Harv J Law Public Policy 17:61–70Google Scholar
  35. Ferrer Bertran J, Ratti G (2013) Theoretical disagreements: a restatement of legal positivism. In: Canale D, Tuzet G (eds) The planning theory of law: a critical reading, Law and Philosophy Library, vol 100. Springer, Dordrecht, p 182Google Scholar
  36. Fisher J (ed) (2005) Free will: critical concepts in philosophy. Routledge, New York, p 217Google Scholar
  37. Gilbert M (1990) Walking together: a paradigmatic social phenomenon. Midwest Stud Philos 15(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gilbert M (2000) Sociality and responsibility: new essays in plural subject theory. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., LanhamGoogle Scholar
  39. Gilbert M (2006) A theory of political obligation. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gilbert M (2007) Searle and collective intentions. In: Tsohatzidis S (ed) Intentional acts and institutional facts: essays on John Searle’s social ontology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hallersted S (2013) Managing the lifecycle of open innovation platforms. Springer, Wiesbaden, p 35Google Scholar
  42. Hart H (1958) Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harv Law Rev 71(4):593–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hart H (1997) The concept of law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Howels J (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res Policy 35(5):715–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hustinx P (2010) Privacy by design: delivering the promises. Identity Inf Soc 3(2):253–255. Springer. Accessed 10 May 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lessig L (1998) The new Chicago school. J Legal Stud 27(S2):661–691 The University of Chicago PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lessig L (1999) The law of the horse: what Cyberlaw might teach. Harvar Law Rev 113:501–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lessig L (2002) The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connected world. Vintage Books, New York, p 121Google Scholar
  49. Lessig L (2006) Code. Version 2.0, Appendix. Basic Books, New York, pp 120–137, pp 340–345Google Scholar
  50. Lessig L (2004) Free culture: the nature and future of creativity. Penguin Books, New York, pp 121–173Google Scholar
  51. Levinson S, Mailloux S (1991) (eds) Interpreting law and literature: a hermeneutic reader. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, p 271Google Scholar
  52. Mohan W (1990) Intention, plans, and practical reason. Int Stud Philos 22(3):89. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Book Review)Google Scholar
  53. Murray J Methods of interpretation: comparative law method, Report of Mr. Justice John L. Murray, President of the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of Ireland, Actes du colloque pour le cinquantième anniversaire des Traités de Rome. Accessed 10 May 2019, pp 39–47
  54. Nauwelaers C (2011) intermediaries in regional innovation systems: role and challenges for policy. In: Cooke P et al (eds) Handbook of regional innovation and growth. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, p 474Google Scholar
  55. O’Hagan E (2001) Faces of intention: selected essays on intention and agency by Michael Bratman, Cambridge Studies in Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, New York (Book Review). Dialogue 40(2):393Google Scholar
  56. Osorio D, Jimenez M, Arroyo L (2012) Open innovation through intermediaries in the web: a comparative case study. In: de Pablos Heredero C, López D (eds) Open innovation in firms and public administrations: technologies for value creation. Information Science Reference (IGI Global), Hershey, p 201Google Scholar
  57. Owens D (2012) Shaping the normative landscape. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 50Google Scholar
  58. Raz J (1999) Practical reason and norm. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reidenberg J (1998) Lex informatica: the formulation of information policy rules through technology. Texas Law Rev 76(3):553–593Google Scholar
  60. Samuel G (2013) A short introduction to the common law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, p 102Google Scholar
  61. Samuel G (2014) An introduction to comparative law: theory and method. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 138Google Scholar
  62. Searle J (1983) Intentionality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Searle J (1990) Collective intentions and actions. In: Cohen P, Morgan J, Pollack M (eds) Intentions in communications. MIT Press, Cambridge. Reprinted in Searle J (2002) Consciousness and language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 401–416Google Scholar
  64. Searle J (1995) The construction of social reality. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Searle J (2010) Making the social world: the structure of human civilization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 46–47Google Scholar
  66. Shapiro S (2011) Legality. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sharaf S, Djemame K (2015) Enabling service level agreement renegotiation through extending WS-agreement specification. SOCA 9(2):177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shiner R (2005) A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence: legal institutions and the sources of law, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht, p 57Google Scholar
  69. Schote N (2012) QoS-aware model-driven SOA using SoaML, Master Thesis, University of Twente, EEMCS–TRESE: Software Engineering Group, p 63Google Scholar
  70. Stewart J, Hyysalo S (2008) Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological innovation. Int J Innov Manag 12(3):295–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stone M (2012) Planning positivism and planning natural law. Can J Law Jurisprudence, Forthcoming; Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 363:7. Accessed 10 May 2019
  72. Tuomela R (2014) Michael E. Bratman, shared agency: a planning theory of acting together. Oxford University Press, Oxford (Book Review) Accessed 10 May 2019
  73. Velleman D (1991) Intention, plans, and practical reason by Michael E. Bratman. Philos Rev 100(2):277. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Book Review)Google Scholar
  74. Wacks R (2014) Philosophy of law: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wacks R (2015) Understanding jurisprudence, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 147Google Scholar
  76. Wend D (1975) (ed) Utility, probability and human decision making. In: Selected Proceedings of an interdisciplinary research conference, vol II, Rome, 3–6 September 1973. D. Reidel Publishing Co., DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  77. Westerlund A (2015) Shared agency: a planning theory of acting together, by Michael E, Bratman. Aust J Philos 93(2):822–836. Oxford University Press, Oxford (Book Review)Google Scholar
  78. Zwicky E, Cooper S, Chapman D (2000) Building internet firewalls, 2nd edn. O’Reilly & Associates Inc., SebastopolGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law (CeBIL)University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations