Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Exploring system boundaries

Research

Associated organisational unit

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Exploring system boundaries

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Exploring system boundaries. / Webb, Tom.
In: Law and Critique, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2013, p. 131-151.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Webb, T 2013, 'Exploring system boundaries', Law and Critique, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 131-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-013-9118-0

APA

Webb, T. (2013). Exploring system boundaries. Law and Critique, 24(2), 131-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-013-9118-0

Vancouver

Webb T. Exploring system boundaries. Law and Critique. 2013;24(2):131-151. doi: 10.1007/s10978-013-9118-0

Author

Webb, Tom. / Exploring system boundaries. In: Law and Critique. 2013 ; Vol. 24, No. 2. pp. 131-151.

Bibtex

@article{6dbca2e026ad4af0aa14494b2e0301cf,
title = "Exploring system boundaries",
abstract = "Autopoiesis is normally considered to be the systems theory in law. In this paper complexity theory is presented as an alternative systems approach. In order to position complexity theory as a plausible alternative to autopoiesis I discuss the differing understanding of boundary within each theory, and use this as a vehicle to critique autopoiesis. My critique is situated within systems theory thinking but is external to both autopoiesis and complexity theory (although I must oscillate between the two object of critique). Because both approaches possess an understanding of boundary it provides an effective tool to contrast their differences, while permitting each to be described in its own language. It is argued that complexity theory offers an approach to boundaries as contingent, emergent, interfaces, which the autopoietic construction of boundary can learn from in several ways. More generally it is suggested that the complexity theory approach to boundaries offers lawyers engaging with systems theory a new critical perspective to assess legal constructions.",
keywords = "Systems theory, Law, legal theory, complexity theory, autopoiesis, Luhmann",
author = "Tom Webb",
note = "The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10978-013-9118-0",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1007/s10978-013-9118-0",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "131--151",
journal = "Law and Critique",
issn = "0957-8536",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring system boundaries

AU - Webb, Tom

N1 - The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10978-013-9118-0

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Autopoiesis is normally considered to be the systems theory in law. In this paper complexity theory is presented as an alternative systems approach. In order to position complexity theory as a plausible alternative to autopoiesis I discuss the differing understanding of boundary within each theory, and use this as a vehicle to critique autopoiesis. My critique is situated within systems theory thinking but is external to both autopoiesis and complexity theory (although I must oscillate between the two object of critique). Because both approaches possess an understanding of boundary it provides an effective tool to contrast their differences, while permitting each to be described in its own language. It is argued that complexity theory offers an approach to boundaries as contingent, emergent, interfaces, which the autopoietic construction of boundary can learn from in several ways. More generally it is suggested that the complexity theory approach to boundaries offers lawyers engaging with systems theory a new critical perspective to assess legal constructions.

AB - Autopoiesis is normally considered to be the systems theory in law. In this paper complexity theory is presented as an alternative systems approach. In order to position complexity theory as a plausible alternative to autopoiesis I discuss the differing understanding of boundary within each theory, and use this as a vehicle to critique autopoiesis. My critique is situated within systems theory thinking but is external to both autopoiesis and complexity theory (although I must oscillate between the two object of critique). Because both approaches possess an understanding of boundary it provides an effective tool to contrast their differences, while permitting each to be described in its own language. It is argued that complexity theory offers an approach to boundaries as contingent, emergent, interfaces, which the autopoietic construction of boundary can learn from in several ways. More generally it is suggested that the complexity theory approach to boundaries offers lawyers engaging with systems theory a new critical perspective to assess legal constructions.

KW - Systems theory

KW - Law

KW - legal theory

KW - complexity theory

KW - autopoiesis

KW - Luhmann

U2 - 10.1007/s10978-013-9118-0

DO - 10.1007/s10978-013-9118-0

M3 - Journal article

VL - 24

SP - 131

EP - 151

JO - Law and Critique

JF - Law and Critique

SN - 0957-8536

IS - 2

ER -