Abstract: This paper will analyse the different ways by which law has - PDF document

Abstract: This paper will analyse the different ways by which law has been mapped, modelled and graphically represented in rela9on to and within the context of the inter‐networked society. Star9ng with Lawrence Lessig's illustra9on of the "pathe9c" dot and how it is subject to four modali9es of regula9on (law, social norms, the market and architecture), the author will go on to examine Andrew Murray's three‐ dimensional regulatory matrix and John Griffiths' representa9ons of law vis‐à‐vis semi‐autonomous social fields. By analysing the various theories and methodologies that underpin the different network‐based approaches to mapping law in the informa9on society ‐ namely, systems theory, actor‐network theory and legal pluralism ‐ this paper argues that it may be more fruiOul for those engaged in socio‐techno‐legal studies to focus less on what law is but where it is to be found. By studying the plural and ever reconfiguring rela9ons among social actors in the network society, law and informa9on technology research becomes less about discovering the laws of networks but becoming aware that the network is the law. Good aPernoon. I will be speaking about the different ways that law has been mapped in rela9on to the global inter‐networked society.

Overview I. Introduc9on II. Mapping networks A. Networks B. Maps III. Mapping law and technology in the informa9on society A. Lessig B. Murray IV. Network‐based theories and methods A. Systems theory B. Actor‐Network Theory C. Legal pluralism V. Interac9ve legality A. The network is the law B. Law in the making

• Field of network theory and analysis has been around for decades • However, with the ubiquity of the internet and rise of the network society – common place to view world in terms of networks, see networks all around us • Mapping inherent in the study of networks • One cannot imagine a network without seeing its basic elements ‐ points and lines • Value of mapping ‐ people are able to simplify, give order to and make sense of complex phenomena • Literally, it allows us to draw a clearer picture

• Mapping law and society Santos’ considers legal maps as both a metaphor and a tool to reconceptualise law • According to Santos, there are 3 mechanisms for map‐making – scale, projec9on and symbolisa9on • Laws as maps – guide and code • Represent and construct legal reality – what law is and ought to be Image source ‐ h^p://3dnature.com/images/Longmont.jpg

• Analyse different ways ICT legal scholars illustrated law in rela9on to informa9on society ‐ Illustra9ng the laws of cyberspace, Lessig begins with a pathe9c dot who is subject to 4 modali9es of regula9on (namely, law, social norms, the market and architecture) ‐ Using the 3 mechanisms for map‐making, Lessig’s map has a macro view, projected to the centre and uses basic symbols ‐ This map is presently the dominant theory of ICT legal studies ‐ Limita9ons to Lessig’s map – narrow view of law as and fails to consider the ac9ve subject

• Murray builds on Lessig’s model ‐ broader view of law/regula9on, includes plural actors and takes note of mul9ple links • Murray’s three‐dimensional regulatory matrix is more complex and dynamic • Even though uses basic symbols, much broader, more detailed, covers both centre and periphery • Different view of the pathe9c dot – as ac9ve par9cipant • Various network‐based theories and methodologies are crucial to understanding law in rela9on to the informa9on society

Image sources: ‐ h^p://thumbs.dreams9me.com/thumb_373/12366397487kzzk0.jpg found on website www.dreams9me.com/stock‐photography‐compass‐... ‐ h^p://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h^p://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2003/graphics/ meyers2.jpg&imgrefurl=h^p://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2003/ meyers.html&usg=__xFjFZ2ATgyZHOoJWN8JEJYja2Ls=&h=346&w=350&sz=22&hl=en&start=6&um=1&itbs =1&tbnid=CWI1Kvu236MZXM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dactor%2Bnetwork %2Btheory%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox‐a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en‐ US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1 from website www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2003/meyers.html

• Murray draws on systems theory (ST) or legal autopoiesis • Law as a social system • Beyond the scope of this paper to discuss ST in full, but ST concepts and methods may be useful • Example of cogni9ve mapping

• Like ST, actor‐network theory (ANT) is a rich and complex field ‐ beyond scope of this paper to give a full account • But there are useful ANT concepts and tools • For one, ANT and ICT legal studies share a common interest in technology and society • Valuable concept of the “actor‐network” • Recommenda9on to study and be like the engineer • Consider non‐human as actors/actants • Aim to trace associa9ons and assemblages • Cartographic methods such as social‐technical graphs Image source ‐ h^p://wikiadapt.org/images/2/20/Actor_Network_diagram.jpg from website wikiadapt.org/index.php?9tle=Actor‐network_m…

• Limita9ons of ST and ANT – generally focused on regulators and neglects ordinary users • Legal pluralism – generally not considered as applying to networks but it does • Describe legal pluralism and interlegality • Graphic as dynamic state of plural norma9vity

• Legal pluralism as a focal point of different network‐based theories and methods • Revisit and build on Murray’s 3D graph, same map but a new way of seeing • Focus both links between actors and the networks that they form • Proper object of study – very network of plural legal orders (interac9ve legality) • Not what are the laws of networks but the network is the law • Not just “law in books” or “law in ac9on” but “law in the making” – by both actors and networks • Interac9ve legal map – not what but where and who • Not define what law is but a challenge to describe and explore the interac9ve network of plural legal orders Using legal pluralism as a focal point for the different network‐based theories and methods, it becomes possible then to revisit and build on Murray’s three‐dimensional regulatory matrix in order to reveal a profound insight on how law can be mapped anew in rela9on to the inter‐networked society. By focusing on both the mul9ple, heterogeneous links and rela9ons between different actors and the different networks that they form, it becomes apparent that (paraphrasing Callon) the proper object of ICT legal studies is neither society itself nor the so‐called social rela9onships but the very network of plural legal orders that simultaneously gives rise to what I will call interac3ve legality . The value of studying network theory and analysis is, therefore, not to determine what are the laws of networks (which is what most ICT legal scholars tend to focus on when they start from the premise of code as law) but to observe, describe and understand that “the network is the law”. It should noted however that the network is far from sta9c and is ever reconfiguring. Viewed in this light, this revised legal pluralist map become less of an illustra9on of the constraining power of regulators and more of a representa9on of the dynamic par9cipa9on that is actually taking place at the centres and peripheries of society. The idea of interac9ve legality goes beyond the typical socio‐legal no9ons of “law in books” and “law in ac9on”. It is about law in the making through the interac9ons of both actors and networks. This interac9ve legal map is not about what law is but where it is to be found and who are involved in its cons9tu9on. The statement “the network is the law” is not an a^empt to define law but it is simply a challenge to describe and explore the interac9ve network of plural legal orders that we belong to and make up.

This is the end of my presenta9on. If you have any ques9ons or comments, please let me know.