The co-evolution of sustainable development and environmental justice: Cooperation, then competition, then conflict

Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 161-184

  Ruhl, J B ^a,b  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 0032837914     PISSN: 10643958     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (180)

1. My working definition of sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." WORLD COMM'N ON ENV'T & DEV., OUR COMMON FUTURE 43 (1987). At its broadest, sustainable development is the philosophy that today's progress must not come at tomorrow's expense and that human progress thus must be sustained not just in a few places for a few years, but for the entire planet into the distant future. See Jonathan Lash, Toward a Sustainable Future, 12 NAT. RESOURCES & ENV'T 83, 83 (1997). Only recently have policy makers and commentators begun to hash out the legal framework for implementing sustainable development as a principle of governance rather than merely one of philosophy. See John C. Dernbach, Sustainable Development as a Framework for National Governance, 49 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 1, 85-90 (1998). For thorough bibliographies of sustainable development literature, see ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURES: A CRITICAL GUIDE TO RECENT BOOKS, REPORTS, AND PERIODICALS (Michael Marien ed., 1996); Keith Pezzoli, Sustainable Development Literature: A Transdisciplinary Bibliography, 40 J. ENVTL. PLANNING & MGMT. 575 (1997).
2. My working definition of sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." WORLD COMM'N ON ENV'T & DEV., OUR COMMON FUTURE 43 (1987). At its broadest, sustainable development is the philosophy that today's progress must not come at tomorrow's expense and that human progress thus must be sustained not just in a few places for a few years, but for the entire planet into the distant future. See Jonathan Lash, Toward a Sustainable Future, 12 NAT. RESOURCES & ENV'T 83, 83 (1997). Only recently have policy makers and commentators begun to hash out the legal framework for implementing sustainable development as a principle of governance rather than merely one of philosophy. See John C. Dernbach, Sustainable Development as a Framework for National Governance, 49 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 1, 85-90 (1998). For thorough bibliographies of sustainable development literature, see ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURES: A CRITICAL GUIDE TO RECENT BOOKS, REPORTS, AND PERIODICALS (Michael Marien ed., 1996); Keith Pezzoli, Sustainable Development Literature: A Transdisciplinary Bibliography, 40 J. ENVTL. PLANNING & MGMT. 575 (1997).
3. My working definition of sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." WORLD COMM'N ON ENV'T & DEV., OUR COMMON FUTURE 43 (1987). At its broadest, sustainable development is the philosophy that today's progress must not come at tomorrow's expense and that human progress thus must be sustained not just in a few places for a few years, but for the entire planet into the distant future. See Jonathan Lash, Toward a Sustainable Future, 12 NAT. RESOURCES & ENV'T 83, 83 (1997). Only recently have policy makers and commentators begun to hash out the legal framework for implementing sustainable development as a principle of governance rather than merely one of philosophy. See John C. Dernbach, Sustainable Development as a Framework for National Governance, 49 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 1, 85-90 (1998). For thorough bibliographies of sustainable development literature, see ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURES: A CRITICAL GUIDE TO RECENT BOOKS, REPORTS, AND PERIODICALS (Michael Marien ed., 1996); Keith Pezzoli, Sustainable Development Literature: A Transdisciplinary Bibliography, 40 J. ENVTL. PLANNING & MGMT. 575 (1997).
4. My working definition of sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." WORLD COMM'N ON ENV'T & DEV., OUR COMMON FUTURE 43 (1987). At its broadest, sustainable development is the philosophy that today's progress must not come at tomorrow's expense and that human progress thus must be sustained not just in a few places for a few years, but for the entire planet into the distant future. See Jonathan Lash, Toward a Sustainable Future, 12 NAT. RESOURCES & ENV'T 83, 83 (1997). Only recently have policy makers and commentators begun to hash out the legal framework for implementing sustainable development as a principle of governance rather than merely one of philosophy. See John C. Dernbach, Sustainable Development as a Framework for National Governance, 49 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 1, 85-90 (1998). For thorough bibliographies of sustainable development literature, see ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURES: A CRITICAL GUIDE TO RECENT BOOKS, REPORTS, AND PERIODICALS (Michael Marien ed., 1996); Keith Pezzoli, Sustainable Development Literature: A Transdisciplinary Bibliography, 40 J. ENVTL. PLANNING & MGMT. 575 (1997).
5. My working definition of sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." WORLD COMM'N ON ENV'T & DEV., OUR COMMON FUTURE 43 (1987). At its broadest, sustainable development is the philosophy that today's progress must not come at tomorrow's expense and that human progress thus must be sustained not just in a few places for a few years, but for the entire planet into the distant future. See Jonathan Lash, Toward a Sustainable Future, 12 NAT. RESOURCES & ENV'T 83, 83 (1997). Only recently have policy makers and commentators begun to hash out the legal framework for implementing sustainable development as a principle of governance rather than merely one of philosophy. See John C. Dernbach, Sustainable Development as a Framework for National Governance, 49 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 1, 85-90 (1998). For thorough bibliographies of sustainable development literature, see ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURES: A CRITICAL GUIDE TO RECENT BOOKS, REPORTS, AND PERIODICALS (Michael Marien ed., 1996); Keith Pezzoli, Sustainable Development Literature: A Transdisciplinary Bibliography, 40 J. ENVTL. PLANNING & MGMT. 575 (1997).
6. My working definition of environmental justice is the "fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses (visited Oct. 19, 1998) 〈http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ofa/ejepa.html〉(explaining how EPA will include environmental justice factors in environmental impact statements). The topic of environmental justice, and whether environmental injustice truly exists, has exploded in the last decade into legal and social commentary. See, e.g., CHRISTOPHER H. FOREMAN, JR., THE PROMISE AND PERIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (1998); DAVID E. NEWTON, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK (1996); KENNETH A. MANASTER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND JUSTICE (1995); Symposium, Urban Environmental Justice, 21 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 431 (1994); Symposium, Race, Class, and Environmental Justice, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 839 (1992). For thorough bibliographies of environmental justice literature, see Carita Shanklin, Pathfinder: Environmental Justice, 24 ECOLOGY L.Q. 333 (1997); Adam D. Schwartz, The Law of Environmental Justice: A Research Pathfinder, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,543 (1995).
7. My working definition of environmental justice is the "fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses (visited Oct. 19, 1998) 〈http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ofa/ejepa.html〉(explaining how EPA will include environmental justice factors in environmental impact statements). The topic of environmental justice, and whether environmental injustice truly exists, has exploded in the last decade into legal and social commentary. See, e.g., CHRISTOPHER H. FOREMAN, JR., THE PROMISE AND PERIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (1998); DAVID E. NEWTON, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK (1996); KENNETH A. MANASTER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND JUSTICE (1995); Symposium, Urban Environmental Justice, 21 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 431 (1994); Symposium, Race, Class, and Environmental Justice, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 839 (1992). For thorough bibliographies of environmental justice literature, see Carita Shanklin, Pathfinder: Environmental Justice, 24 ECOLOGY L.Q. 333 (1997); Adam D. Schwartz, The Law of Environmental Justice: A Research Pathfinder, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,543 (1995).
8. My working definition of environmental justice is the "fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses (visited Oct. 19, 1998) 〈http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ofa/ejepa.html〉(explaining how EPA will include environmental justice factors in environmental impact statements). The topic of environmental justice, and whether environmental injustice truly exists, has exploded in the last decade into legal and social commentary. See, e.g., CHRISTOPHER H. FOREMAN, JR., THE PROMISE AND PERIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (1998); DAVID E. NEWTON, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK (1996); KENNETH A. MANASTER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND JUSTICE (1995); Symposium, Urban Environmental Justice, 21 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 431 (1994); Symposium, Race, Class, and Environmental Justice, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 839 (1992). For thorough bibliographies of environmental justice literature, see Carita Shanklin, Pathfinder: Environmental Justice, 24 ECOLOGY L.Q. 333 (1997); Adam D. Schwartz, The Law of Environmental Justice: A Research Pathfinder, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,543 (1995).
9. My working definition of environmental justice is the "fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses (visited Oct. 19, 1998) 〈http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ofa/ejepa.html〉(explaining how EPA will include environmental justice factors in environmental impact statements). The topic of environmental justice, and whether environmental injustice truly exists, has exploded in the last decade into legal and social commentary. See, e.g., CHRISTOPHER H. FOREMAN, JR., THE PROMISE AND PERIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (1998); DAVID E. NEWTON, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK (1996); KENNETH A. MANASTER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND JUSTICE (1995); Symposium, Urban Environmental Justice, 21 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 431 (1994); Symposium, Race, Class, and Environmental Justice, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 839 (1992). For thorough bibliographies of environmental justice literature, see Carita Shanklin, Pathfinder: Environmental Justice, 24 ECOLOGY L.Q. 333 (1997); Adam D. Schwartz, The Law of Environmental Justice: A Research Pathfinder, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,543 (1995).
10. My working definition of environmental justice is the "fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses (visited Oct. 19, 1998) 〈http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ofa/ejepa.html〉(explaining how EPA will include environmental justice factors in environmental impact statements). The topic of environmental justice, and whether environmental injustice truly exists, has exploded in the last decade into legal and social commentary. See, e.g., CHRISTOPHER H. FOREMAN, JR., THE PROMISE AND PERIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (1998); DAVID E. NEWTON, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK (1996); KENNETH A. MANASTER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND JUSTICE (1995); Symposium, Urban Environmental Justice, 21 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 431 (1994); Symposium, Race, Class, and Environmental Justice, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 839 (1992). For thorough bibliographies of environmental justice literature, see Carita Shanklin, Pathfinder: Environmental Justice, 24 ECOLOGY L.Q. 333 (1997); Adam D. Schwartz, The Law of Environmental Justice: A Research Pathfinder, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,543 (1995).
11. My working definition of environmental justice is the "fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses (visited Oct. 19, 1998) 〈http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ofa/ejepa.html〉(explaining how EPA will include environmental justice factors in environmental impact statements). The topic of environmental justice, and whether environmental injustice truly exists, has exploded in the last decade into legal and social commentary. See, e.g., CHRISTOPHER H. FOREMAN, JR., THE PROMISE AND PERIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (1998); DAVID E. NEWTON, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK (1996); KENNETH A. MANASTER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND JUSTICE (1995); Symposium, Urban Environmental Justice, 21 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 431 (1994); Symposium, Race, Class, and Environmental Justice, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 839 (1992). For thorough bibliographies of environmental justice literature, see Carita Shanklin, Pathfinder: Environmental Justice, 24 ECOLOGY L.Q. 333 (1997); Adam D. Schwartz, The Law of Environmental Justice: A Research Pathfinder, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,543 (1995).
12. My working definition of environmental justice is the "fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses (visited Oct. 19, 1998) 〈http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ofa/ejepa.html〉(explaining how EPA will include environmental justice factors in environmental impact statements). The topic of environmental justice, and whether environmental injustice truly exists, has exploded in the last decade into legal and social commentary. See, e.g., CHRISTOPHER H. FOREMAN, JR., THE PROMISE AND PERIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (1998); DAVID E. NEWTON, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK (1996); KENNETH A. MANASTER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND JUSTICE (1995); Symposium, Urban Environmental Justice, 21 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 431 (1994); Symposium, Race, Class, and Environmental Justice, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 839 (1992). For thorough bibliographies of environmental justice literature, see Carita Shanklin, Pathfinder: Environmental Justice, 24 ECOLOGY L.Q. 333 (1997); Adam D. Schwartz, The Law of Environmental Justice: A Research Pathfinder, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,543 (1995).
13. My working definition of environmental justice is the "fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses (visited Oct. 19, 1998) 〈http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ofa/ejepa.html〉(explaining how EPA will include environmental justice factors in environmental impact statements). The topic of environmental justice, and whether environmental injustice truly exists, has exploded in the last decade into legal and social commentary. See, e.g., CHRISTOPHER H. FOREMAN, JR., THE PROMISE AND PERIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (1998); DAVID E. NEWTON, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK (1996); KENNETH A. MANASTER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND JUSTICE (1995); Symposium, Urban Environmental Justice, 21 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 431 (1994); Symposium, Race, Class, and Environmental Justice, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 839 (1992). For thorough bibliographies of environmental justice literature, see Carita Shanklin, Pathfinder: Environmental Justice, 24 ECOLOGY L.Q. 333 (1997); Adam D. Schwartz, The Law of Environmental Justice: A Research Pathfinder, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,543 (1995).
14. See J. B. Ruhl, The Seven Degrees of Relevance: Why Should Real-World Environmental Attorneys Care Now About Sustainable Development Policy?, 8 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 273 (1998).
15. Id. at 291 n.52. The other two legs are economy and environment. See id. at 278.
16. Complexity theory refers to the body of literature and research devoted to "the study of the behavior of macroscopic collections of [interacting] units that are endowed with the potential to evolve in time." PETER COVENEY & ROGER HIGHFIELD, FRONTIERS OF COMPLEXITY 7 (1995). Although the study of such complex adaptive systems can be quite technical in substance, many of the recent and most influential works in the field focus on applications of the technical theory to real world phenomena, such as biological evolution. See, e.g., MURRAY GELL-MANN, THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR (1994); STUART KAUFFMAN, AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: THE SEARCH FOR LAWS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COMPLEXITY (1995); JOHN L. CASTI, COMPLEXIFICATION: EXPLAINING THE PARADOXICAL WORLD THROUGH THE SCIENCE OF SURPRISE (1994); JACK COHEN & IAN STEWART, THE COLLAPSE OF CHAOS (1994); BRIAN GOODWIN, HOW THE LEOPARD CHANGED ITS SPOTS: THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY (1994); JOHN HOLLAND, EMERGENCE: FROM CHAOS TO ORDER (1998). For histories of the development of complexity theory and the important role the Santa Fe Institute has played in complex systems research, see ROGER LEWIN, COMPLEXITY: LIFE AT THE EDGE OF CHAOS 8-22 (1992); M. MITCHELL WALDROP, COMPLEXITY (1992); JAMES GLEICK, CHAOS: MAKING A NEW SCIENCE 3-8 (1987). Current information about the field is best obtained from the journal Complexity.
17. Complexity theory refers to the body of literature and research devoted to "the study of the behavior of macroscopic collections of [interacting] units that are endowed with the potential to evolve in time." PETER COVENEY & ROGER HIGHFIELD, FRONTIERS OF COMPLEXITY 7 (1995). Although the study of such complex adaptive systems can be quite technical in substance, many of the recent and most influential works in the field focus on applications of the technical theory to real world phenomena, such as biological evolution. See, e.g., MURRAY GELL-MANN, THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR (1994); STUART KAUFFMAN, AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: THE SEARCH FOR LAWS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COMPLEXITY (1995); JOHN L. CASTI, COMPLEXIFICATION: EXPLAINING THE PARADOXICAL WORLD THROUGH THE SCIENCE OF SURPRISE (1994); JACK COHEN & IAN STEWART, THE COLLAPSE OF CHAOS (1994); BRIAN GOODWIN, HOW THE LEOPARD CHANGED ITS SPOTS: THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY (1994); JOHN HOLLAND, EMERGENCE: FROM CHAOS TO ORDER (1998). For histories of the development of complexity theory and the important role the Santa Fe Institute has played in complex systems research, see ROGER LEWIN, COMPLEXITY: LIFE AT THE EDGE OF CHAOS 8-22 (1992); M. MITCHELL WALDROP, COMPLEXITY (1992); JAMES GLEICK, CHAOS: MAKING A NEW SCIENCE 3-8 (1987). Current information about the field is best obtained from the journal Complexity.
18. Complexity theory refers to the body of literature and research devoted to "the study of the behavior of macroscopic collections of [interacting] units that are endowed with the potential to evolve in time." PETER COVENEY & ROGER HIGHFIELD, FRONTIERS OF COMPLEXITY 7 (1995). Although the study of such complex adaptive systems can be quite technical in substance, many of the recent and most influential works in the field focus on applications of the technical theory to real world phenomena, such as biological evolution. See, e.g., MURRAY GELL-MANN, THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR (1994); STUART KAUFFMAN, AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: THE SEARCH FOR LAWS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COMPLEXITY (1995); JOHN L. CASTI, COMPLEXIFICATION: EXPLAINING THE PARADOXICAL WORLD THROUGH THE SCIENCE OF SURPRISE (1994); JACK COHEN & IAN STEWART, THE COLLAPSE OF CHAOS (1994); BRIAN GOODWIN, HOW THE LEOPARD CHANGED ITS SPOTS: THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY (1994); JOHN HOLLAND, EMERGENCE: FROM CHAOS TO ORDER (1998). For histories of the development of complexity theory and the important role the Santa Fe Institute has played in complex systems research, see ROGER LEWIN, COMPLEXITY: LIFE AT THE EDGE OF CHAOS 8-22 (1992); M. MITCHELL WALDROP, COMPLEXITY (1992); JAMES GLEICK, CHAOS: MAKING A NEW SCIENCE 3-8 (1987). Current information about the field is best obtained from the journal Complexity.
19. Complexity theory refers to the body of literature and research devoted to "the study of the behavior of macroscopic collections of [interacting] units that are endowed with the potential to evolve in time." PETER COVENEY & ROGER HIGHFIELD, FRONTIERS OF COMPLEXITY 7 (1995). Although the study of such complex adaptive systems can be quite technical in substance, many of the recent and most influential works in the field focus on applications of the technical theory to real world phenomena, such as biological evolution. See, e.g., MURRAY GELL-MANN, THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR (1994); STUART KAUFFMAN, AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: THE SEARCH FOR LAWS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COMPLEXITY (1995); JOHN L. CASTI, COMPLEXIFICATION: EXPLAINING THE PARADOXICAL WORLD THROUGH THE SCIENCE OF SURPRISE (1994); JACK COHEN & IAN STEWART, THE COLLAPSE OF CHAOS (1994); BRIAN GOODWIN, HOW THE LEOPARD CHANGED ITS SPOTS: THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY (1994); JOHN HOLLAND, EMERGENCE: FROM CHAOS TO ORDER (1998). For histories of the development of complexity theory and the important role the Santa Fe Institute has played in complex systems research, see ROGER LEWIN, COMPLEXITY: LIFE AT THE EDGE OF CHAOS 8-22 (1992); M. MITCHELL WALDROP, COMPLEXITY (1992); JAMES GLEICK, CHAOS: MAKING A NEW SCIENCE 3-8 (1987). Current information about the field is best obtained from the journal Complexity.
20. Complexity theory refers to the body of literature and research devoted to "the study of the behavior of macroscopic collections of [interacting] units that are endowed with the potential to evolve in time." PETER COVENEY & ROGER HIGHFIELD, FRONTIERS OF COMPLEXITY 7 (1995). Although the study of such complex adaptive systems can be quite technical in substance, many of the recent and most influential works in the field focus on applications of the technical theory to real world phenomena, such as biological evolution. See, e.g., MURRAY GELL-MANN, THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR (1994); STUART KAUFFMAN, AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: THE SEARCH FOR LAWS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COMPLEXITY (1995); JOHN L. CASTI, COMPLEXIFICATION: EXPLAINING THE PARADOXICAL WORLD THROUGH THE SCIENCE OF SURPRISE (1994); JACK COHEN & IAN STEWART, THE COLLAPSE OF CHAOS (1994); BRIAN GOODWIN, HOW THE LEOPARD CHANGED ITS SPOTS: THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY (1994); JOHN HOLLAND, EMERGENCE: FROM CHAOS TO ORDER (1998). For histories of the development of complexity theory and the important role the Santa Fe Institute has played in complex systems research, see ROGER LEWIN, COMPLEXITY: LIFE AT THE EDGE OF CHAOS 8-22 (1992); M. MITCHELL WALDROP, COMPLEXITY (1992); JAMES GLEICK, CHAOS: MAKING A NEW SCIENCE 3-8 (1987). Current information about the field is best obtained from the journal Complexity.
21. Complexity theory refers to the body of literature and research devoted to "the study of the behavior of macroscopic collections of [interacting] units that are endowed with the potential to evolve in time." PETER COVENEY & ROGER HIGHFIELD, FRONTIERS OF COMPLEXITY 7 (1995). Although the study of such complex adaptive systems can be quite technical in substance, many of the recent and most influential works in the field focus on applications of the technical theory to real world phenomena, such as biological evolution. See, e.g., MURRAY GELL-MANN, THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR (1994); STUART KAUFFMAN, AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: THE SEARCH FOR LAWS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COMPLEXITY (1995); JOHN L. CASTI, COMPLEXIFICATION: EXPLAINING THE PARADOXICAL WORLD THROUGH THE SCIENCE OF SURPRISE (1994); JACK COHEN & IAN STEWART, THE COLLAPSE OF CHAOS (1994); BRIAN GOODWIN, HOW THE LEOPARD CHANGED ITS SPOTS: THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY (1994); JOHN HOLLAND, EMERGENCE: FROM CHAOS TO ORDER (1998). For histories of the development of complexity theory and the important role the Santa Fe Institute has played in complex systems research, see ROGER LEWIN, COMPLEXITY: LIFE AT THE EDGE OF CHAOS 8-22 (1992); M. MITCHELL WALDROP, COMPLEXITY (1992); JAMES GLEICK, CHAOS: MAKING A NEW SCIENCE 3-8 (1987). Current information about the field is best obtained from the journal Complexity.
22. Complexity theory refers to the body of literature and research devoted to "the study of the behavior of macroscopic collections of [interacting] units that are endowed with the potential to evolve in time." PETER COVENEY & ROGER HIGHFIELD, FRONTIERS OF COMPLEXITY 7 (1995). Although the study of such complex adaptive systems can be quite technical in substance, many of the recent and most influential works in the field focus on applications of the technical theory to real world phenomena, such as biological evolution. See, e.g., MURRAY GELL-MANN, THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR (1994); STUART KAUFFMAN, AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: THE SEARCH FOR LAWS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COMPLEXITY (1995); JOHN L. CASTI, COMPLEXIFICATION: EXPLAINING THE PARADOXICAL WORLD THROUGH THE SCIENCE OF SURPRISE (1994); JACK COHEN & IAN STEWART, THE COLLAPSE OF CHAOS (1994); BRIAN GOODWIN, HOW THE LEOPARD CHANGED ITS SPOTS: THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY (1994); JOHN HOLLAND, EMERGENCE: FROM CHAOS TO ORDER (1998). For histories of the development of complexity theory and the important role the Santa Fe Institute has played in complex systems research, see ROGER LEWIN, COMPLEXITY: LIFE AT THE EDGE OF CHAOS 8-22 (1992); M. MITCHELL WALDROP, COMPLEXITY (1992); JAMES GLEICK, CHAOS: MAKING A NEW SCIENCE 3-8 (1987). Current information about the field is best obtained from the journal Complexity.
23. Complexity theory refers to the body of literature and research devoted to "the study of the behavior of macroscopic collections of [interacting] units that are endowed with the potential to evolve in time." PETER COVENEY & ROGER HIGHFIELD, FRONTIERS OF COMPLEXITY 7 (1995). Although the study of such complex adaptive systems can be quite technical in substance, many of the recent and most influential works in the field focus on applications of the technical theory to real world phenomena, such as biological evolution. See, e.g., MURRAY GELL-MANN, THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR (1994); STUART KAUFFMAN, AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: THE SEARCH FOR LAWS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COMPLEXITY (1995); JOHN L. CASTI, COMPLEXIFICATION: EXPLAINING THE PARADOXICAL WORLD THROUGH THE SCIENCE OF SURPRISE (1994); JACK COHEN & IAN STEWART, THE COLLAPSE OF CHAOS (1994); BRIAN GOODWIN, HOW THE LEOPARD CHANGED ITS SPOTS: THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY (1994); JOHN HOLLAND, EMERGENCE: FROM CHAOS TO ORDER (1998). For histories of the development of complexity theory and the important role the Santa Fe Institute has played in complex systems research, see ROGER LEWIN, COMPLEXITY: LIFE AT THE EDGE OF CHAOS 8-22 (1992); M. MITCHELL WALDROP, COMPLEXITY (1992); JAMES GLEICK, CHAOS: MAKING A NEW SCIENCE 3-8 (1987). Current information about the field is best obtained from the journal Complexity.
24. Complexity theory refers to the body of literature and research devoted to "the study of the behavior of macroscopic collections of [interacting] units that are endowed with the potential to evolve in time." PETER COVENEY & ROGER HIGHFIELD, FRONTIERS OF COMPLEXITY 7 (1995). Although the study of such complex adaptive systems can be quite technical in substance, many of the recent and most influential works in the field focus on applications of the technical theory to real world phenomena, such as biological evolution. See, e.g., MURRAY GELL-MANN, THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR (1994); STUART KAUFFMAN, AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: THE SEARCH FOR LAWS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COMPLEXITY (1995); JOHN L. CASTI, COMPLEXIFICATION: EXPLAINING THE PARADOXICAL WORLD THROUGH THE SCIENCE OF SURPRISE (1994); JACK COHEN & IAN STEWART, THE COLLAPSE OF CHAOS (1994); BRIAN GOODWIN, HOW THE LEOPARD CHANGED ITS SPOTS: THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY (1994); JOHN HOLLAND, EMERGENCE: FROM CHAOS TO ORDER (1998). For histories of the development of complexity theory and the important role the Santa Fe Institute has played in complex systems research, see ROGER LEWIN, COMPLEXITY: LIFE AT THE EDGE OF CHAOS 8-22 (1992); M. MITCHELL WALDROP, COMPLEXITY (1992); JAMES GLEICK, CHAOS: MAKING A NEW SCIENCE 3-8 (1987). Current information about the field is best obtained from the journal Complexity.
25. Complexity theory refers to the body of literature and research devoted to "the study of the behavior of macroscopic collections of [interacting] units that are endowed with the potential to evolve in time." PETER COVENEY & ROGER HIGHFIELD, FRONTIERS OF COMPLEXITY 7 (1995). Although the study of such complex adaptive systems can be quite technical in substance, many of the recent and most influential works in the field focus on applications of the technical theory to real world phenomena, such as biological evolution. See, e.g., MURRAY GELL-MANN, THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR (1994); STUART KAUFFMAN, AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: THE SEARCH FOR LAWS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COMPLEXITY (1995); JOHN L. CASTI, COMPLEXIFICATION: EXPLAINING THE PARADOXICAL WORLD THROUGH THE SCIENCE OF SURPRISE (1994); JACK COHEN & IAN STEWART, THE COLLAPSE OF CHAOS (1994); BRIAN GOODWIN, HOW THE LEOPARD CHANGED ITS SPOTS: THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY (1994); JOHN HOLLAND, EMERGENCE: FROM CHAOS TO ORDER (1998). For histories of the development of complexity theory and the important role the Santa Fe Institute has played in complex systems research, see ROGER LEWIN, COMPLEXITY: LIFE AT THE EDGE OF CHAOS 8-22 (1992); M. MITCHELL WALDROP, COMPLEXITY (1992); JAMES GLEICK, CHAOS: MAKING A NEW SCIENCE 3-8 (1987). Current information about the field is best obtained from the journal Complexity.
26. For an overview of evolutionary theories of law, with a special emphasis on the application of complexity theory, see J. B. Ruhl, The Fitness of Law: Using Complexity Theory to Describe the Evolution of Law and Society and Its Practical Meaning for Democracy, 49 VAND. L. REV. 1407 (1996).
27. For a general description of the behavior of legal systems using concepts from complexity theory, see J. B. Ruhl, Complexity Theory as a Paradigm for the Dynamical Law-and-Society System: A Wake-Up Call for Legal Reductionism and the Modern Administrative State, 45 DUKE L. J. 849 (1996).
28. For some thoughts on how the development of environmental policy generally behaves and evolves as a complex adaptive system, see J. B. Ruhl, Thinking of Environmental Law as a Complex Adaptive System: How to Clean Up the Environment By Making a Mess of Environmental Law, 34 HOUS. L. REV. 933 (1997).
29. Environmentalism is increasingly hard to define in a way that distinguishes those who believe in it as a policy versus those who do not. Public opinion polls show that Americans who say they care about the environment have grown in number steadily through 1991, to over 60% of the population, and have plateaued at a level at which environmentalism can be considered "mainstream." Nevertheless, only a small fraction of those "environmentalists" actively make environmentalism their way of life through dedicated recycling, composting, water conservation, xeriscape, and so on. See, e.g., Tibbett L. Speer, Growing the Green Market, AM. DEMOGRAPHICS, Aug. 1997, at 45; Peter Stisser, A Deeper Shade of Green, AM. DEMOGRAPHICS, Mar. 1994, at 24. See also Traci Watson, For Most Americans, It's not Easy Being Green, USA TODAY, Apr. 22, 1998, at 3A. Perhaps the best way of defining environmentalism, therefore, is by process of elimination: i.e., it is neither utilitarian-oriented resourcism, see infra note 10, nor biocentric-oriented Deep Ecology, see infra note 11, but rather something in between - what I will call mainstream environmentalism.
30. Environmentalism is increasingly hard to define in a way that distinguishes those who believe in it as a policy versus those who do not. Public opinion polls show that Americans who say they care about the environment have grown in number steadily through 1991, to over 60% of the population, and have plateaued at a level at which environmentalism can be considered "mainstream." Nevertheless, only a small fraction of those "environmentalists" actively make environmentalism their way of life through dedicated recycling, composting, water conservation, xeriscape, and so on. See, e.g., Tibbett L. Speer, Growing the Green Market, AM. DEMOGRAPHICS, Aug. 1997, at 45; Peter Stisser, A Deeper Shade of Green, AM. DEMOGRAPHICS, Mar. 1994, at 24. See also Traci Watson, For Most Americans, It's not Easy Being Green, USA TODAY, Apr. 22, 1998, at 3A. Perhaps the best way of defining environmentalism, therefore, is by process of elimination: i.e., it is neither utilitarian-oriented resourcism, see infra note 10, nor biocentric-oriented Deep Ecology, see infra note 11, but rather something in between - what I will call mainstream environmentalism.
31. Environmentalism is increasingly hard to define in a way that distinguishes those who believe in it as a policy versus those who do not. Public opinion polls show that Americans who say they care about the environment have grown in number steadily through 1991, to over 60% of the population, and have plateaued at a level at which environmentalism can be considered "mainstream." Nevertheless, only a small fraction of those "environmentalists" actively make environmentalism their way of life through dedicated recycling, composting, water conservation, xeriscape, and so on. See, e.g., Tibbett L. Speer, Growing the Green Market, AM. DEMOGRAPHICS, Aug. 1997, at 45; Peter Stisser, A Deeper Shade of Green, AM. DEMOGRAPHICS, Mar. 1994, at 24. See also Traci Watson, For Most Americans, It's not Easy Being Green, USA TODAY, Apr. 22, 1998, at 3A. Perhaps the best way of defining environmentalism, therefore, is by process of elimination: i.e., it is neither utilitarian-oriented resourcism, see infra note 10, nor biocentric-oriented Deep Ecology, see infra note 11, but rather something in between - what I will call mainstream environmentalism.
32. I use the term resourcism as a shorthand for the policy position that advocates reliance on free-market forces, well-defined property rights, and cost-benefit analysis as the principal mechanism for directing resource consumption and environmental protection policies, based on the theory that resource owners will be driven by the profit motive to balance resource exploitation and conservation at economically efficient levels over the short and long runs. See J. Baird Callicott & Karen Mumford, Ecological Sustainability as a Conservation Concept, 11 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 32, 34 (1997)(identifying "resourcism" as one of the philosophies of environmental policy that dominated the first three quarters of the twentieth century). One of the leading advocates of an extreme version of this utilitarian, anthropocentric approach was the late economist Julian Simon, who contended that technological advances, spurred by the profit motive, would prevent rising consumption from depleting and destroying natural resources. See, e.g., Julian L. Simon, Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of False Bad News, 208 SCI. 1431 (1980). For more current versions of the policy, see, for example, TERRY L. ANDERSON & DONALD R. LEAL, FREE MARKET ENVIRONMENTALISM (1991); RICHARD A. EPSTEIN, SIMPLE RULES FOR A COMPLEX WORLD (1995).
33. I use the term resourcism as a shorthand for the policy position that advocates reliance on free-market forces, well-defined property rights, and cost-benefit analysis as the principal mechanism for directing resource consumption and environmental protection policies, based on the theory that resource owners will be driven by the profit motive to balance resource exploitation and conservation at economically efficient levels over the short and long runs. See J. Baird Callicott & Karen Mumford, Ecological Sustainability as a Conservation Concept, 11 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 32, 34 (1997)(identifying "resourcism" as one of the philosophies of environmental policy that dominated the first three quarters of the twentieth century). One of the leading advocates of an extreme version of this utilitarian, anthropocentric approach was the late economist Julian Simon, who contended that technological advances, spurred by the profit motive, would prevent rising consumption from depleting and destroying natural resources. See, e.g., Julian L. Simon, Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of False Bad News, 208 SCI. 1431 (1980). For more current versions of the policy, see, for example, TERRY L. ANDERSON & DONALD R. LEAL, FREE MARKET ENVIRONMENTALISM (1991); RICHARD A. EPSTEIN, SIMPLE RULES FOR A COMPLEX WORLD (1995).
34. I use the term resourcism as a shorthand for the policy position that advocates reliance on free-market forces, well-defined property rights, and cost-benefit analysis as the principal mechanism for directing resource consumption and environmental protection policies, based on the theory that resource owners will be driven by the profit motive to balance resource exploitation and conservation at economically efficient levels over the short and long runs. See J. Baird Callicott & Karen Mumford, Ecological Sustainability as a Conservation Concept, 11 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 32, 34 (1997)(identifying "resourcism" as one of the philosophies of environmental policy that dominated the first three quarters of the twentieth century). One of the leading advocates of an extreme version of this utilitarian, anthropocentric approach was the late economist Julian Simon, who contended that technological advances, spurred by the profit motive, would prevent rising consumption from depleting and destroying natural resources. See, e.g., Julian L. Simon, Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of False Bad News, 208 SCI. 1431 (1980). For more current versions of the policy, see, for example, TERRY L. ANDERSON & DONALD R. LEAL, FREE MARKET ENVIRONMENTALISM (1991); RICHARD A. EPSTEIN, SIMPLE RULES FOR A COMPLEX WORLD (1995).
35. I use the term resourcism as a shorthand for the policy position that advocates reliance on free-market forces, well-defined property rights, and cost-benefit analysis as the principal mechanism for directing resource consumption and environmental protection policies, based on the theory that resource owners will be driven by the profit motive to balance resource exploitation and conservation at economically efficient levels over the short and long runs. See J. Baird Callicott & Karen Mumford, Ecological Sustainability as a Conservation Concept, 11 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 32, 34 (1997)(identifying "resourcism" as one of the philosophies of environmental policy that dominated the first three quarters of the twentieth century). One of the leading advocates of an extreme version of this utilitarian, anthropocentric approach was the late economist Julian Simon, who contended that technological advances, spurred by the profit motive, would prevent rising consumption from depleting and destroying natural resources. See, e.g., Julian L. Simon, Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of False Bad News, 208 SCI. 1431 (1980). For more current versions of the policy, see, for example, TERRY L. ANDERSON & DONALD R. LEAL, FREE MARKET ENVIRONMENTALISM (1991); RICHARD A. EPSTEIN, SIMPLE RULES FOR A COMPLEX WORLD (1995).
36. Deep Ecology represents the most transformative-minded brand of environmental policy, highly biocentric in orientation and deeply committed to the singular goal of environmental preservation. Its defining work is JAMES LOVELOCK, THE AGES OF GAIA: A BIOGRAPHY OF OUR LIVING EARTH (1988); Bill Devall, The Deep Ecology Movement, 20 NAT. RESOURCES J. 299 (1980). Speer's and Stisser's demographic frameworks, see supra note 9, characterize Deep Ecology believers as among the "True Blue Greens" who eat, breathe, and drink environmental preservation. They are personified today at the extreme perhaps best by Julia "Butterfly" Hill, who has lived more than one year 180-feet high in a 1000-year old redwood tree which she has named Luna, in order to prevent the tree from being felled for lumber. See, e.g., James Brooke, Redwoods Still Inspire Sturdiest of Defenders, NEW YORK TIMES, March 28, 1998 at A6; Lunatree, Luna, (visited Dec. 12, 1998) 〈http://www.lunatree.org〉.
37. Deep Ecology represents the most transformative-minded brand of environmental policy, highly biocentric in orientation and deeply committed to the singular goal of environmental preservation. Its defining work is JAMES LOVELOCK, THE AGES OF GAIA: A BIOGRAPHY OF OUR LIVING EARTH (1988); Bill Devall, The Deep Ecology Movement, 20 NAT. RESOURCES J. 299 (1980). Speer's and Stisser's demographic frameworks, see supra note 9, characterize Deep Ecology believers as among the "True Blue Greens" who eat, breathe, and drink environmental preservation. They are personified today at the extreme perhaps best by Julia "Butterfly" Hill, who has lived more than one year 180-feet high in a 1000-year old redwood tree which she has named Luna, in order to prevent the tree from being felled for lumber. See, e.g., James Brooke, Redwoods Still Inspire Sturdiest of Defenders, NEW YORK TIMES, March 28, 1998 at A6; Lunatree, Luna, (visited Dec. 12, 1998) 〈http://www.lunatree.org〉.
38. Deep Ecology represents the most transformative-minded brand of environmental policy, highly biocentric in orientation and deeply committed to the singular goal of environmental preservation. Its defining work is JAMES LOVELOCK, THE AGES OF GAIA: A BIOGRAPHY OF OUR LIVING EARTH (1988); Bill Devall, The Deep Ecology Movement, 20 NAT. RESOURCES J. 299 (1980). Speer's and Stisser's demographic frameworks, see supra note 9, characterize Deep Ecology believers as among the "True Blue Greens" who eat, breathe, and drink environmental preservation. They are personified today at the extreme perhaps best by Julia "Butterfly" Hill, who has lived more than one year 180-feet high in a 1000-year old redwood tree which she has named Luna, in order to prevent the tree from being felled for lumber. See, e.g., James Brooke, Redwoods Still Inspire Sturdiest of Defenders, NEW YORK TIMES, March 28, 1998 at A6; Lunatree, Luna, (visited Dec. 12, 1998) 〈http://www.lunatree.org〉.
39. Deep Ecology represents the most transformative-minded brand of environmental policy, highly biocentric in orientation and deeply committed to the singular goal of environmental preservation. Its defining work is JAMES LOVELOCK, THE AGES OF GAIA: A BIOGRAPHY OF OUR LIVING EARTH (1988); Bill Devall, The Deep Ecology Movement, 20 NAT. RESOURCES J. 299 (1980). Speer's and Stisser's demographic frameworks, see supra note 9, characterize Deep Ecology believers as among the "True Blue Greens" who eat, breathe, and drink environmental preservation. They are personified today at the extreme perhaps best by Julia "Butterfly" Hill, who has lived more than one year 180-feet high in a 1000-year old redwood tree which she has named Luna, in order to prevent the tree from being felled for lumber. See, e.g., James Brooke, Redwoods Still Inspire Sturdiest of Defenders, NEW YORK TIMES, March 28, 1998 at A6; Lunatree, Luna, (visited Dec. 12, 1998) 〈http://www.lunatree.org〉.
40. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
41. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
42. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
43. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl,
44. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
45. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
46. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
47. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
48. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
49. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
50. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
51. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
52. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
53. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
54. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
55. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN
56. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
57. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
58. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
59. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
60. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
61. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
62. For an extended and more technical discussion of these properties, and how they may be useful in the study of evolution of legal systems, see Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1437-67. For similar treatments of law using complexity theory or related concepts, see generally Hope M. Babcock, Democracy's Discontent in a Complex World: Can Avalanches, Sandpiles, and Finches Optimize Michael Sandel's Civic Republican Community?, 85 GEO. L.J. 2085 (1997) (critiquing civic republican political theory using complex systems principles); Vincent Di Lorenzo, Complexity and Legislative Signatures: Lending Discrimination Laws as a Test Case, 12 J. L. & POL. 637 (1996) (using chaos theory to evaluate the legislative response to alleged lending discrimination); Thomas Earl Geu, Chaos, Complexity, and Coevolution: The Web of Law, Management Theory, and Law Related Services at the Millennium, 65 TENN. L. REV. 925 (1998) (discussing complexity theory in the concept of corporate structure, management, and law). See also Vincent Di Lorenzo, Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study, 12 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 425, 432-35 (1994) (developing a model for legislative decision making based on chaos theory); Gerald Andrews Emison, The Potential for Unconventional Progress: Complex Adaptive Systems and Environmental Quality Policy, 7 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL'Y F. 167, 192 (1996) (applying to ecological protection issues); Thomas Earl Geu, The Tao of Jurisprudence: Chaos, Brain Science, Synchronicity, and the Law, 61 TENN. L. REV. 933, 934-35 (1994) (discussing the potential significance of chaos and emergence to legal theory); Andrew W. Hayes, An Introduction to Chaos and Law, 60 UMKC L. REV. 751, 764-73 (1992) (containing a general discussion of chaos theory and its application to judicial decision making); Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About "Reasonable Medical Certainty", 57 MD. L. REV. 380, 389-94 (1998) (describing the evolution of the tort doctrine of "reasonable medical certainty" using complex systems principles); Mark J. Roe, Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 641, 643-65 (1996) (describing legal evolution according to path dependence theory and chaotic systems theory); Robert E. Scott, Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 329, 329-31 (1993) (applying chaos theory to the legal dilemma between "present justice" and "future justice"); Kenton K. Yee, Coevolution of Law and Culture: A Coevolutionary Games Approach, COMPLEXITY, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at 4 (describing attempts to mathematically model evolution of common law according to complex adaptive systems dynamics). Several other works discuss complexity theory or its branches, in specific legal settings, albeit sometimes very briefly. See Lawrence A. Cunningham, Capital Market Theory, Mandatory Disclosure, and Price Discovery, 51 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 843, 854-59 (1994) (applying chaos theory to capital market regulation); Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 546, 581-92 (1994) (discussing the application of chaos theory to capital market regulation); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decision Making and Theory, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 68, 114-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using, among other mediums, a discussion of chaos theory); Alistair M. Hanna, The Land Use System, 13 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 531, 538 (1996) (discussing application of chaos theory and self-organization theory to a land use regulation system); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Is Democracy Like Sex?, 48 VAND. L. REV. 1635, 1641-42 (1995) (discussing the anti-parasitic effect of evolutionary processes as an analogy to democratic processes); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Chaos and the Court, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 110, 112-15 (1991) (explaining Supreme Court constitutional jurisprudence using chaos theory); William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, and Effective Law, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 25, 46-48 (1993) (discussing chaos theory surfacing in evolutionary biology commentary as a metaphor for evolution of environmental law); see also MICHEL VAN DE KERCHOVE & FRANCOIS OST, LEGAL SYSTEM BETWEEN ORDER AND DISORDER 102-77 (Iain Stewart trans., Oxford University Press 1994) (discussing order-disorder tensions in legal systems); Eric Kades, The Laws of Complexity and the Complexity of Laws: The Implications of Computational Complexity Theory for the Law, 49 RUTGERS L. REV. 403, 452-54, 476 (1997) (focusing on mathematically complex issues as they arise in law, such as cyclical priority issues in liens and property titles); Lynn M. LoPucki, The Systems Approach to Law, 82 CORNELL L. REV. 479, 480-82 (1997) (advocating an empiricist "systems approach" to legal analysis).
63. See KAUFFMAN, supra note 5, at 169-73 (using a model of a genomic network to show that the more interconnected genes are, the more likely it is that conflicting constraints will exist).
64. See id. at 26 (relating that biologists envision "fitness landscapes, where the peaks represent high fitness, and populations wander . . . across the landscape seeking peaks, but perhaps never achieving them").
65. In the field of evolutionary biology, for example, Kauffman states that: [a]daptation is usually thought of as a process of "hill climbing" through minor variations toward "peaks" of high fitness on a fitness landscape. And natural selection is thought of as "pulling" an adapting population towards such peaks. We can imagine a mountain range on which populations of organisms . . . are feeling their way to the summits. Id. at 154.
66. Complex systems researchers view evolution in any system as "an attempt to solve a complex optimization problem." COVENEY & HIGHFIELD, supra note 5, at 118.
67. See Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1467-74.
68. See Ruhl, supra note 8, at 968-79.
69. Hence the problem for adaptive systems is that, while the process of adaptation inherent in the "survival of the fittest" conception of evolution is designed to lead to ever-increasing improvements, all other systems competing for the same scarce resources are adapting. Finding the optimal condition thus requires strategies designed to take into account competing systems' anticipated adaptations. KAUFFMAN, supra note 5, at 119-26, 247-59.
70. As Kauffman explains: [t]he idealization we have used [thus far] that fitness landscapes are fixed and unchanging is false. Fitness landscapes change because the environment changes. And the fitness landscape of one species changes because the other species that form its niche themselves adapt on their own fitness landscapes. Bat and frog, predator and prey, coevolve. Each adaptive move by the bats deforms the landscape of the frogs. Id. at 208.
71. See id. at 217-21. Kauffman notes that in a single game of the famous "Prisoners Dilemma," the rational strategy of the two independent agents is defect-defect, but that in a repeated game different strategies emerge as the independent agents come to understand the coordinated nature of their choices. This effect, posits Kauffman, provides an analogy to the coevolution of fitness landscapes, though coevolution in biological organisms takes place without conscious predecision. See id.
72. Robert McIntosh, Competition: Historical Perspectives, in KEYWORDS OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY 67 (Evelyn Fox Keller & Elisabeth A. Lloyd eds., 1992).
73. See JONATHAN WEINER, THE BEAK OF THE FINCH: A STORY OF EVOLUTION IN OUR TIME 142 (1995) ("Even if [two species] never actually jostle and joust, never once collide physically over a . . . seed or a nesting site . . . , natural selection will gradually magnify their differences.").
74. For example, through ecological displacement - species yielding part of an environment to competitors - more species can be accommodated, the overall diversity of the environment rises, and as a result all cooperating species may prosper more than under an active conflict or passive competition regime. See generally Evelyn Strauss, Mutual Nonaggression Pact May Aid Ant Spread, 282 SCI. 854 (1998) (describing the discovery of a species of ant whose colonies cooperate in order to maximize their respective fitness over other competing species of ants). The preeminent biologist Edward O. Wilson explains that an ecological "community shifts continuously, and by an unconscious trial and error, through innumerable fits and starts, its biodiversity slowly rises. Species excluded earlier at last find room, symbiotic pairs and trios are fitted together, the forest grows deeper and richer, new niches are prepared. The community thus approaches a mature state, actually a dynamic equilibrium with species forever arriving and disappearing and the total species numbers bobbing up and down inside narrow limits." EDWARD O. WILSON, THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE 172-73 (1992). Wilson's model of ecosystems is precisely the complexity theory model of a dynamical system's co-evolutionary transition towards the region of complexity. For example, Kauffman explores the issue of "community assembly" as one of co-evolution of fitness landscapes which produces a "'community landscape', in which each point of the terrain represents a different combination of species [and] . . . the peaks will represent points of high fitness - combinations that are stable." KAUFFMAN, supra note 5, at 211-14.
75. For example, through ecological displacement - species yielding part of an environment to competitors - more species can be accommodated, the overall diversity of the environment rises, and as a result all cooperating species may prosper more than under an active conflict or passive competition regime. See generally Evelyn Strauss, Mutual Nonaggression Pact May Aid Ant Spread, 282 SCI. 854 (1998) (describing the discovery of a species of ant whose colonies cooperate in order to maximize their respective fitness over other competing species of ants). The preeminent biologist Edward O. Wilson explains that an ecological "community shifts continuously, and by an unconscious trial and error, through innumerable fits and starts, its biodiversity slowly rises. Species excluded earlier at last find room, symbiotic pairs and trios are fitted together, the forest grows deeper and richer, new niches are prepared. The community thus approaches a mature state, actually a dynamic equilibrium with species forever arriving and disappearing and the total species numbers bobbing up and down inside narrow limits." EDWARD O. WILSON, THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE 172-73 (1992). Wilson's model of ecosystems is precisely the complexity theory model of a dynamical system's co-evolutionary transition towards the region of complexity. For example, Kauffman explores the issue of "community assembly" as one of co-evolution of fitness landscapes which produces a "'community landscape', in which each point of the terrain represents a different combination of species [and] . . . the peaks will represent points of high fitness - combinations that are stable." KAUFFMAN, supra note 5, at 211-14.
76. For example, through ecological displacement - species yielding part of an environment to competitors - more species can be accommodated, the overall diversity of the environment rises, and as a result all cooperating species may prosper more than under an active conflict or passive competition regime. See generally Evelyn Strauss, Mutual Nonaggression Pact May Aid Ant Spread, 282 SCI. 854 (1998) (describing the discovery of a species of ant whose colonies cooperate in order to maximize their respective fitness over other competing species of ants). The preeminent biologist Edward O. Wilson explains that an ecological "community shifts continuously, and by an unconscious trial and error, through innumerable fits and starts, its biodiversity slowly rises. Species excluded earlier at last find room, symbiotic pairs and trios are fitted together, the forest grows deeper and richer, new niches are prepared. The community thus approaches a mature state, actually a dynamic equilibrium with species forever arriving and disappearing and the total species numbers bobbing up and down inside narrow limits." EDWARD O. WILSON, THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE 172-73 (1992). Wilson's model of ecosystems is precisely the complexity theory model of a dynamical system's co-evolutionary transition towards the region of complexity. For example, Kauffman explores the issue of "community assembly" as one of co-evolution of fitness landscapes which produces a "'community landscape', in which each point of the terrain represents a different combination of species [and] . . . the peaks will represent points of high fitness - combinations that are stable." KAUFFMAN, supra note 5, at 211-14.
77. Gell-Mann posits that "[a]lthough competition among schemata is a characteristic of complex adaptive systems, the systems themselves may indulge in a mixture of competition and cooperation in their interactions with one another. It is often beneficial for complex adaptive systems to join together to form a collective entity that also functions as a complex adaptive system ... ." GELL-MANN, supra note 5, at 242. Ecosystems are an example, see WEINER, supra note 23, at 200-02, and another might be "when individuals and firms in an economy operate under a government that regulates their behavior in order to promote values important to the community as a whole." GELL-MANN, supra note 5, at 242.
78. Gell-Mann posits that "[a]lthough competition among schemata is a characteristic of complex adaptive systems, the systems themselves may indulge in a mixture of competition and cooperation in their interactions with one another. It is often beneficial for complex adaptive systems to join together to form a collective entity that also functions as a complex adaptive system ... ." GELL-MANN, supra note 5, at 242. Ecosystems are an example, see WEINER, supra note 23, at 200-02, and another might be "when individuals and firms in an economy operate under a government that regulates their behavior in order to promote values important to the community as a whole." GELL-MANN, supra note 5, at 242.
79. Gell-Mann posits that "[a]lthough competition among schemata is a characteristic of complex adaptive systems, the systems themselves may indulge in a mixture of competition and cooperation in their interactions with one another. It is often beneficial for complex adaptive systems to join together to form a collective entity that also functions as a complex adaptive system ... ." GELL-MANN, supra note 5, at 242. Ecosystems are an example, see WEINER, supra note 23, at 200-02, and another might be "when individuals and firms in an economy operate under a government that regulates their behavior in order to promote values important to the community as a whole." GELL-MANN, supra note 5, at 242.
80. See Ruhl, supra note 6, at 1456-62.
81. See id. at 1463-67.
82. See Ruhl, supra note 8, at 980-91.
83. See generally 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (1994) (the Endangered Species Act). The case study is by no means intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the law, policy, and practice under the ESA. For that background see MICHAEL J. BEAN & MELANIE ROWLAND, THE EVOLUTION OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW 193-276 (3d ed. 1997); RICHARD LITTELL, ENDANGERED AND OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES: FEDERAL LAW AND REGULATION 3-108 (1992); DANIEL J. ROHLF, THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: A GUIDE TO ITS PROTECTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION (1989).
84. See generally 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (1994) (the Endangered Species Act). The case study is by no means intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the law, policy, and practice under the ESA. For that background see MICHAEL J. BEAN & MELANIE ROWLAND, THE EVOLUTION OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW 193-276 (3d ed. 1997); RICHARD LITTELL, ENDANGERED AND OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES: FEDERAL LAW AND REGULATION 3-108 (1992); DANIEL J. ROHLF, THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: A GUIDE TO ITS PROTECTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION (1989).
85. See generally 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (1994) (the Endangered Species Act). The case study is by no means intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the law, policy, and practice under the ESA. For that background see MICHAEL J. BEAN & MELANIE ROWLAND, THE EVOLUTION OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW 193-276 (3d ed. 1997); RICHARD LITTELL, ENDANGERED AND OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES: FEDERAL LAW AND REGULATION 3-108 (1992); DANIEL J. ROHLF, THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: A GUIDE TO ITS PROTECTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION (1989).
86. Described as the "explosion of environmental law," from 1970 through 1976 in quick order Congress newly enacted or substantially amended ten major environmental regulation statutes covering air, water, and land pollution, project planning, workplace safety, manufacturing, species protection, and public drinking water. See J. William Futrell, The History of Environmental Law, in ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FROM RESOURCES TO RECOVERY § 1.2(I)(1)-(3), at 35-37 (1993) (collecting statutes); ROBERT V. PERCIVAL ET AL., ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION: LAW SCIENCE, AND POLICY 106-110 (2d ed. 1996) (collecting statutes). That pace of new enactments was nearly duplicated during the same period in the field of natural resources protection. See Futrell, supra, § 1.2(I)(3), at 38-39 (collecting statutes). The process continued into the 1980s, albeit at a slower pace. See PERCIVAL, supra, at 111-12 (collecting statutes). Some laws were changed more than once in this period, each change boosting the degree of federal dominance. See John P. Dwyer, The Practice of Federalism Under the Clean Air Act, 54 MD. L. REV. 1183, 1183-85 (1995) (tracing changes to federal air pollution control legislation).
87. Described as the "explosion of environmental law," from 1970 through 1976 in quick order Congress newly enacted or substantially amended ten major environmental regulation statutes covering air, water, and land pollution, project planning, workplace safety, manufacturing, species protection, and public drinking water. See J. William Futrell, The History of Environmental Law, in ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FROM RESOURCES TO RECOVERY § 1.2(I)(1)-(3), at 35-37 (1993) (collecting statutes); ROBERT V. PERCIVAL ET AL., ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION: LAW SCIENCE, AND POLICY 106-110 (2d ed. 1996) (collecting statutes). That pace of new enactments was nearly duplicated during the same period in the field of natural resources protection. See Futrell, supra, § 1.2(I)(3), at 38-39 (collecting statutes). The process continued into the 1980s, albeit at a slower pace. See PERCIVAL, supra, at 111-12 (collecting statutes). Some laws were changed more than once in this period, each change boosting the degree of federal dominance. See John P. Dwyer, The Practice of Federalism Under the Clean Air Act, 54 MD. L. REV. 1183, 1183-85 (1995) (tracing changes to federal air pollution control legislation).
88. Described as the "explosion of environmental law," from 1970 through 1976 in quick order Congress newly enacted or substantially amended ten major environmental regulation statutes covering air, water, and land pollution, project planning, workplace safety, manufacturing, species protection, and public drinking water. See J. William Futrell, The History of Environmental Law, in ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FROM RESOURCES TO RECOVERY § 1.2(I)(1)-(3), at 35-37 (1993) (collecting statutes); ROBERT V. PERCIVAL ET AL., ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION: LAW SCIENCE, AND POLICY 106-110 (2d ed. 1996) (collecting statutes). That pace of new enactments was nearly duplicated during the same period in the field of natural resources protection. See Futrell, supra, § 1.2(I)(3), at 38-39 (collecting statutes). The process continued into the 1980s, albeit at a slower pace. See PERCIVAL, supra, at 111-12 (collecting statutes). Some laws were changed more than once in this period, each change boosting the degree of federal dominance. See John P. Dwyer, The Practice of Federalism Under the Clean Air Act, 54 MD. L. REV. 1183, 1183-85 (1995) (tracing changes to federal air pollution control legislation).
89. ROHLF, supra note 29, at 25.
90. Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978).
91. For example, the promulgation of effluent discharge limitations under the Clean Water Act involved a complex series of cost-benefit analyses with increasingly more stringent outcomes phased in over time. See generally 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311-1314 (1994) (Clean Water Act). See, e.g., E.I du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977); Jonathan K. Baum, Legislating Cost-Benefit Analysis: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Experience, 9 COLUM. J. ENVTL. L. 75 (1983).
92. See, e.g., Steven P. Quarles, The Pit Bull Goes to School, ENVTL. F., Sep.-Oct. 1998, at 55.
93. "Take" is defined as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) (1994).
94. See id. § 1538(a)(1)(B). For an overview of the take prohibition as implemented, see, for example, Albert Gidari, The Endangered Species Act: Impact of Section 9 on Private Landowners, 24 ENVTL. L. 419 (1994); Frederico Cheever, An Introduction to the Prohibition Against Takings in Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973: Learning to Live With A Powerful Species Preservation Law, 62 U. COLO. L. REV. 109 (1991).
95. See id. § 1538(a)(1)(B). For an overview of the take prohibition as implemented, see, for example, Albert Gidari, The Endangered Species Act: Impact of Section 9 on Private Landowners, 24 ENVTL. L. 419 (1994); Frederico Cheever, An Introduction to the Prohibition Against Takings in Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973: Learning to Live With A Powerful Species Preservation Law, 62 U. COLO. L. REV. 109 (1991).
96. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (1994). For an overview of the scope of federal agency duties with respect to species protected under the ESA, see BEAN & ROWLAND, supra note 29, at 235-65; LITTELL, supra note 29, at 47-63.
97. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (1994). For an overview of the scope of federal agency duties with respect to species protected under the ESA, see BEAN & ROWLAND, supra note 29, at 235-65; LITTELL, supra note 29, at 47-63.
98. Because of this quality, "the act just didn't look like other legislation." CHARLES C. MANN & MARK L. PLUMMER, NOAH'S CHOICE: THE FUTURE OF ENDANGERED SPECIES 161 (1995) (emphasis in original). Although Congress may not have been aware of the ramifications of the ESA's different look, congressional staffers and others close to the drafting and enactment of the original version of the ESA have suggested that they both understood and intended the different look to carry the ESA where other laws enacted in the same time period had not ventured. See id. at 156-62.
99. 437 U.S. 153 (1978).
100. For a thorough history of the project and its fate under the ESA, including how Congress later authorized finalization of the dam by special legislation and amended the ESA to create an exemption from the extinction prohibition, see MANN & PLUMMER, supra note 38, at 164-73.
101. 437 U.S. at 173.
102. Id. at 174.
103. Id. at 187.
104. The case has been described as a "ringing endorsement of the environmentalists' proposition (and the basis of their empowerment strategy) that if citizens are able to prove a statutory violation, the court must enforce the law without equitable balancing." ZYGMUNT J.B. PLATER ET AL., ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY: NATURE, LAW, AND SOCIETY 681-82 (2d ed. 1998). Indeed, after TVA v. Hill the ESA assumed cultural significance beyond environmental issues, as the term "endangered species" became a rhetorical device used in a variety of political and social settings when the speaker wished to emphasize the gravity of threats to a particular icon (e.g., family values, affordable homes, baseball) and the need to save it "at all costs." See, e.g., John Copeland Nagle, Endangered Species Wannabees, 29 SETON HALL L. REV. 235 (1998).
105. The case has been described as a "ringing endorsement of the environmentalists' proposition (and the basis of their empowerment strategy) that if citizens are able to prove a statutory violation, the court must enforce the law without equitable balancing." ZYGMUNT J.B. PLATER ET AL., ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY: NATURE, LAW, AND SOCIETY 681-82 (2d ed. 1998). Indeed, after TVA v. Hill the ESA assumed cultural significance beyond environmental issues, as the term "endangered species" became a rhetorical device used in a variety of political and social settings when the speaker wished to emphasize the gravity of threats to a particular icon (e.g., family values, affordable homes, baseball) and the need to save it "at all costs." See, e.g., John Copeland Nagle, Endangered Species Wannabees, 29 SETON HALL L. REV. 235 (1998).
106. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1) (1994).
107. Thus Speer and Stisser distinguish in their demographic breakdowns of attitudes between the "True Blue Greens" - those who truly practice Deep Ecology - and the much larger group of "Greenback Greens" who espouse environmentalism and support it through monetary contributions, but who live quite unlike True Blue Greens in terms of lifestyle commitment to environmental preservation. See generally Speer, supra note 9; Stisser, supra note 9.
108. Thus Speer and Stisser distinguish in their demographic breakdowns of attitudes between the "True Blue Greens" - those who truly practice Deep Ecology - and the much larger group of "Greenback Greens" who espouse environmentalism and support it through monetary contributions, but who
109. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-616, 98 Stat. 3221 (1984).
110. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 (1986).
111. See BEAN & ROWLAND, supra note 29, at 229-35; LITTELL, supra note 29, at 70-73.
112. See BEAN & ROWLAND, supra note 29, at 229-35; LITTELL, supra note 29, at 70-73.
113. One commentator has hypothesized that this amendment, on its face a setback for the absolutist approach of the ESA, actually gave the ESA more influence in that landowners previously ignored the ESA take prohibition because there was no way to obtain a permit, whereas after the amendment there was some framework for providing permit authority and thus some incentive to work within the statute's requirements. See Michael J. Bean, The Endangered Species Act and Private Land: Four Lessons Learned from the Past Quarter Century, 28 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,701, 10,708 (1998). To the extent this is an accurate assessment of landowner behavior, it suggests that the absolutist Deep Ecology approach may backfire by producing failures in implementation and compliance.
114. For example, recently parties and attorneys associated with the TVA v. Hill case gathered to recognize the twentieth anniversary of the decision, and to take stock of how the "little fish bites big dam" quality of the case may have limited what the decision could have meant to the Deep Ecology movement. See Janet Byron, Snail darter saga still reverberates in Tennessee, ENDANGERED SPECIES & WETLANDS REP., Dec. 1998, at 12, 12.
115. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
116. See Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 115 S. Ct. 2407 (1995).
117. See Bennett v. Spear, 117 S. Ct. 1154 (1997).
118. See Roger Platt, Ships Passing in the Night: Current Prospects for Reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, ENDANGERED SPECIES UPDATE, Nov.-Dec. 1997, at 3, 5-6 (discussing the supporters and critics of the bipartisan Senate ESA reform bill).
119. For a summary of reform initiatives the Clinton Administration has adopted, for the most part with enthusiastic endorsement from mainstream environmental organizations, see J. B. Ruhl, Who Needs Congress? An Agenda for Administrative Reform of the Endangered Species Act, 6 N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J. 367 (1998); see also PLATER ET AL., supra note 44, at 699-709.
120. For a summary of reform initiatives the Clinton Administration has adopted, for the most part with enthusiastic endorsement from mainstream environmental organizations, see J. B. Ruhl, Who Needs Congress? An Agenda for Administrative Reform of the Endangered Species Act, 6 N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J. 367 (1998); see also PLATER ET AL., supra note 44, at 699-709.
121. For a discussion of the officers of the Environmental Defense Fund advocating several of the Clinton Administration's ESA reform measures, see Michael J. Bean & David S. Wilcove, The Private Land Problem, 11 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 1 (1997); Michael J. Bean & David S. Wilcove, Ending the Impasse, ENVTL. F., July-Aug. 1996, at 22.
122. For a discussion of the officers of the Environmental Defense Fund advocating several of the Clinton Administration's ESA reform measures, see Michael J. Bean & David S. Wilcove, The Private Land Problem, 11 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 1 (1997); Michael J. Bean & David S. Wilcove, Ending the Impasse, ENVTL. F., July-Aug. 1996, at 22.
123. For example, the major critics of the Clinton Administration's ESA reform measures have been Deep Ecology groups. See Ruhl, supra note 56, at 386-87, 398.
124. See generally MARK DOWIE, LOSING GROUND (1995) (describing mainstream environmentalism generally as having deteriorated into polite, ineffectual activism marked by alliances with corporate philanthropists and government agencies, and calling for a new wave of environmental activism which, by all appearances, would be a combination of Deep Ecology and environmental justice). Recently, pie-wielding activist members of the Biotic Baking Brigade smeared Sierra Club president Carl Pope in the face with a pie, claiming he and the organization have turned against the ideals of the environmentalist movement. See Cesar G. Soviano, American Pie, USA TODAY, Nov. 17, 1998, at 1D.
125. See generally MARK DOWIE, LOSING GROUND (1995) (describing mainstream environmentalism generally as having deteriorated into polite, ineffectual activism marked by alliances with corporate philanthropists and government agencies, and calling for a new wave of environmental activism which, by all appearances, would be a combination of Deep Ecology and environmental justice). Recently, pie-wielding activist members of the Biotic Baking Brigade smeared Sierra Club president Carl Pope in the face with a pie, claiming he and the organization have turned against the ideals of the environmentalist movement. See Cesar G. Soviano, American Pie, USA TODAY, Nov. 17, 1998, at 1D.
126. For a more extensive discussion of the replacement of mainstream environmentalism with sustainable development as the dominant environmental policy, and of the multi-trait optimization focus of sustainable development in general, see J. B. Ruhl, Sustainable Development: A Five-Dimensional Algorithm for Environmental Law, 18 STAN. ENVTL. L. REV. 31 (1999).
127. See FOREMAN, supra note 2, at 1 ("Although environmentalists as individuals often sympathized with, and even actively supported, the political struggles of ethnic minorities (and African Americans in particular), environmentalism and civil rights/social welfare evolved as distinct issue spheres . . . . Environmentalism, especially at the national level, had little racial aspect as such."); Alice Kaswan, Environmental Justice: Bridging the Gap Between Environmental Laws and "Justice," 47 AM. U. L. REV. 221, 256-78 (1997) (describing in detail the "tense history" between mainstream environmentalism and the civil rights/environmental justice movement). Several mainstream environmentalist organizations have tried to rectify the omission of social equity from their agenda. See, e.g., EDF Launches New Environmental Justice Initiative, EDF LETTER, Jan. 1999, at 7.
128. See FOREMAN, supra note 2, at 1 ("Although environmentalists as individuals often sympathized with, and even actively supported, the political struggles of ethnic minorities (and African Americans in particular), environmentalism and civil rights/social welfare evolved as distinct issue spheres . . . . Environmentalism, especially at the national level, had little racial aspect as such."); Alice Kaswan, Environmental Justice: Bridging the Gap Between Environmental Laws and "Justice," 47 AM. U. L. REV. 221, 256-78 (1997) (describing in detail the "tense history" between mainstream environmentalism and the civil rights/environmental justice movement). Several mainstream environmentalist organizations have tried to rectify the omission of social equity from their agenda. See, e.g., EDF Launches New Environmental Justice Initiative, EDF LETTER, Jan. 1999, at 7.
129. See FOREMAN, supra note 2, at 1 ("Although environmentalists as individuals often sympathized with, and even actively supported, the political struggles of ethnic minorities (and African Americans in particular), environmentalism and civil rights/social welfare evolved as distinct issue spheres . . . . Environmentalism, especially at the national level, had little racial aspect as such."); Alice Kaswan, Environmental Justice: Bridging the Gap Between Environmental Laws and "Justice," 47 AM. U. L. REV. 221, 256-78 (1997) (describing in detail the "tense history" between mainstream environmentalism and the civil rights/environmental justice movement). Several mainstream environmentalist organizations have tried to rectify the omission of social equity from their agenda. See, e.g., EDF Launches New Environmental Justice Initiative, EDF LETTER, Jan. 1999, at 7.
130. See generally THINKING ECOLOGICALLY: THE NEXT GENERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY (Marian R. Chertow & Daniel C. Esty eds., 1997) (exploring sustainable development concepts in a variety of applications demonstrating how sustainable development differs from traditional environmental law and policy).
131. See John Dernbach et al., U.S. Adherence to Its Agenda 21 Commitments: A Five-Year Review, 27 ENVTL. L. REP. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,504, 10,507 (1997) (Sustainable development "requires us to see that there is virtually no such thing as a purely economic, environmental, or social problem."); Susan L. Smith, Ecologically Sustainable Development: Integrating Economics, Ecology, and Law, 31 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 261, 263 (1995) ("Integrating economic and environmental concerns is the controlling policy objective of sustainable development.")
132. See John Dernbach et al., U.S. Adherence to Its Agenda 21 Commitments: A Five-Year Review, 27 ENVTL. L. REP. (Envtl. L. Inst.) 10,504, 10,507 (1997) (Sustainable development "requires us to see that there is virtually no such thing as a purely economic, environmental, or social problem."); Susan L. Smith, Ecologically Sustainable Development: Integrating Economics, Ecology, and Law, 31 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 261, 263 (1995) ("Integrating economic and environmental concerns is the controlling policy objective of sustainable development.")
133. See Pezzoli, supra note 1, at 549-55 (sustainable development); FOREMAN, supra note 2, at 10-33 (environmental justice); Kaswan, supra note 61, at 225-28 (environmental justice).
134. See Pezzoli, supra note 1, at 549-55 (sustainable development); FOREMAN, supra note 2, at 10-33 (environmental justice); Kaswan, supra note 61, at 225-28 (environmental justice).
135. See Pezzoli, supra note 1, at 549-55 (sustainable development); FOREMAN, supra note 2, at 10-33 (environmental justice); Kaswan, supra note 61, at 225-28 (environmental justice).
136. See First People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, Principles of Environmental Justice (adopted Oct. 27, 1991), reprinted in FOREMAN, supra note 2, at App. B. See also Cheryl A. Calloway & Karen L. Ferguson, The "Human Environment" Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act: Implications for Environmental Justice, 1997 DET. C. L. REV. 1147, 1151, 1182-84.
137. See First People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, Principles of Environmental Justice (adopted Oct. 27, 1991), reprinted in FOREMAN, supra note 2, at App. B. See also Cheryl A. Calloway & Karen L. Ferguson, The "Human Environment" Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act: Implications for Environmental Justice, 1997 DET. C. L. REV. 1147, 1151, 1182-84.
138. Principles of Environmental Justice, supra note 65 (preamble).
139. Id. (Principle 1).
140. Id. (Principle 5).
141. Id. (Principle 17).
142. See FOREMAN, supra note 2, at 12-13, 152 n.17.
143. The PCSD issued its report in February 1997. See PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, SUSTAINABLE AMERICA: A NEW CONSENSUS (1997) [hereinafter SUSTAINABLE AMERICA]. President Clinton commissioned the PCSD by executive order on June 29, 1993, to "develop and recommend to the president a national sustainable development action strategy that will foster economic viability." Exec. Order No. 12,852, 58 Fed. Reg. 35,841 (1993). The PCSD has issued additional reports focusing on translating its recommended policies into concrete measures, see PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SuSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, BUILDING ON CONSENSUS: A PROGRESS REPORT ON SUSTAINABLE AMERICA (1997), and has been authorized "to continue its work by continuing to forge consensus on policy, demonstrating implementation, getting the word out about sustainable development, and evaluating progress." The Fifteenth Meeting of the President's Council on Sustainable Development in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 62 Fed. Reg. 45,283 (1997). For further background and description of the PCSD's work and its place in the emerging domestic sustainable development policy, see Lash, supra note 1, at 83-84 (PCSD co-chair); Dernbach et al., supra note 63, at 10,507-08.
144. The PCSD issued its report in February 1997. See PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, SUSTAINABLE AMERICA: A NEW CONSENSUS (1997) [hereinafter SUSTAINABLE AMERICA]. President Clinton commissioned the PCSD by executive order on June 29, 1993, to "develop and recommend to the president a national sustainable development action strategy that will foster economic viability." Exec. Order No. 12,852, 58 Fed. Reg. 35,841 (1993). The PCSD has issued additional reports focusing on translating its recommended policies into concrete measures, see PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SuSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, BUILDING ON CONSENSUS: A PROGRESS REPORT ON SUSTAINABLE AMERICA (1997), and has been authorized "to continue its work by continuing to forge consensus on policy, demonstrating implementation, getting the word out about sustainable development, and evaluating progress." The Fifteenth Meeting of the President's Council on Sustainable Development in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 62 Fed. Reg. 45,283 (1997). For further background and description of the PCSD's work and its place in the emerging domestic sustainable development policy, see Lash, supra note 1, at 83-84 (PCSD co-chair); Dernbach et al., supra note 63, at 10,507-08.
145. The PCSD issued its report in February 1997. See PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, SUSTAINABLE AMERICA: A NEW CONSENSUS (1997) [hereinafter SUSTAINABLE AMERICA]. President Clinton commissioned the PCSD by executive order on June 29, 1993, to "develop and recommend to the president a national sustainable development action strategy that will foster economic viability." Exec. Order No. 12,852, 58 Fed. Reg. 35,841 (1993). The PCSD has issued additional reports focusing on translating its recommended policies into concrete measures, see PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SuSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, BUILDING ON CONSENSUS: A PROGRESS REPORT ON SUSTAINABLE AMERICA (1997), and has been authorized "to continue its work by continuing to forge consensus on policy, demonstrating implementation, getting the word out about sustainable development, and evaluating progress." The Fifteenth Meeting of the President's Council on Sustainable Development in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 62 Fed. Reg. 45,283 (1997). For further background and description of the PCSD's work and its place in the emerging domestic sustainable development policy, see Lash, supra note 1, at 83-84 (PCSD co-chair); Dernbach et al., supra note 63, at 10,507-08.
146. The PCSD issued its report in February 1997. See PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, SUSTAINABLE AMERICA: A NEW CONSENSUS (1997) [hereinafter SUSTAINABLE AMERICA]. President Clinton commissioned the PCSD by executive order on June 29, 1993, to "develop and recommend to the president a national sustainable development action strategy that will foster economic viability." Exec. Order No. 12,852, 58 Fed. Reg. 35,841 (1993). The PCSD has issued additional reports focusing on translating its recommended policies into concrete measures, see PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SuSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, BUILDING ON CONSENSUS: A PROGRESS REPORT ON SUSTAINABLE AMERICA (1997), and has been authorized "to continue its work by continuing to forge consensus on policy, demonstrating implementation, getting the word out about sustainable development, and evaluating progress." The Fifteenth Meeting of the President's Council on Sustainable Development in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 62 Fed. Reg. 45,283 (1997). For further background and description of the PCSD's work and its place in the emerging domestic sustainable development policy, see Lash, supra note 1, at 83-84 (PCSD co-chair); Dernbach et al., supra note 63, at 10,507-08.
147. SUSTAINABLE AMERICA, supra note 71, at v-vi, pt.10.
148. Id. at vi, pt.10.
149. Id. at v, pt.2 (Sustainable development will help "lead to the mutually reinforcing goals of economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity."); v, pt.3 (Steady progress in reducing social disparities "is essential to economic growth, environmental health, and social justice."); v, pt.5 (Economic growth is "essential for progress toward greater prosperity, equity, and environmental quality."); vi, pt.9 (Local communities must increase their roles "in decisions about environment, equity, natural resources, and economic progress."); and, vi, pt.16 (Citizens must be educated "to understand the interdependence of economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity.").
150. See, e.g., id. at 12 (first three goals of the PCSD's work are to help secure health and the environment, economic prosperity, and equity); id. at 25 (the essential components of sustainable development are environmental health, economic prosperity, and social equity and well-being).
151. Id. at 26.
152. In response to the PCSD report, the Clinton Administration established the SDI Group, thus formalizing the work of a number of federal agencies who had been meeting informally since early 1994 to discuss various approaches for developing a set of sustainable development indicators. The SDI group reports to the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President and is supported through voluntary contributions of staff and resources by participating federal agencies. See U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators, Sustainable Development in the United States, (visited Oct. 27, 1998)〈http://198.183.146.250/CGIBIN/om_isapi.dll?clientID= 6524461&infobase=sdir1297.nfo &softpage=Browse_Frame_Pg42〉[hereinafter U.S. Interagency].
153. Id. For other collections of and links to sustainable development indicators, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Community Based Environmental Protection, CBEP Home Page (visited Feb. 17, 1999) 〈http://www.epa.gov/ecosystems/osecbak/〉; Redefining Progress, National Indicators Project (visited Feb. 17, 1999) 〈http://www.rprogress.org/progsum/ nip/nip_main.html〉.
154. Id. For other collections of and links to sustainable development indicators, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Community Based Environmental Protection, CBEP Home Page (visited Feb. 17, 1999) 〈http://www.epa.gov/ecosystems/osecbak/〉; Redefining Progress, National Indicators Project (visited Feb. 17, 1999) 〈http://www.rprogress.org/progsum/ nip/nip_main.html〉.
155. See U.S. Interagency, supra note 77, at Table 4.2.
156. One leading environmental justice advocate has explained that "for the vast majority of the groups in the Movement, the local fight is everything." FOREMAN, supra note 2, at 4 (quoting Lois Gibbs, Director, Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste).
157. For recent examples see Nancy Brooks & Rajiv Sethi, The Distribution of Pollution: Community Characteristics and Exposure to Air Toxics, 32 J. ENVTL. EcON. & MGMT. 233 (1997), for a discussion of a zip code level cross-sectional correlation of air toxic emission location and race; Richard D. Gragg III et al., The Location and Community Demographics of Targeted Environmental Hazardous Sites in Florida, 12 J. LAND USE & ENVTL. L. 1 (1996), for a discussion of a demographic proximity study of hazardous facilities to minority and low income communities.
158. For recent examples see Nancy Brooks & Rajiv Sethi, The Distribution of Pollution: Community Characteristics and Exposure to Air Toxics, 32 J. ENVTL. EcON. & MGMT. 233 (1997), for a discussion of a zip code level cross-sectional correlation of air toxic emission location and race; Richard D. Gragg III et al., The Location and Community Demographics of Targeted Environmental Hazardous Sites in Florida, 12 J. LAND USE & ENVTL. L. 1 (1996), for a discussion of a demographic proximity study of hazardous facilities to minority and low income communities.
159. See Colin Crawford, Analyzing Evidence of Environmental Justice: A Suggestion for Professor Been, 12 J. LAND USE & ENVTL. L. 103 (1996). There remains tremendous controversy over the merits of the demographic methods of many environmental justice studies. See FOREMAN, supra note 2, at 21-27.
160. See Colin Crawford, Analyzing Evidence of Environmental Justice: A Suggestion for Professor Been, 12 J. LAND USE & ENVTL. L. 103 (1996). There remains tremendous controversy over the merits of the demographic methods of many environmental justice studies. See FOREMAN, supra note 2, at 21-27.
161. See SAB Recommends Steps for EPA to Follow in Analyses of "Disproportionate Impacts", 209 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) A-3 (1998); SAB to Begin Reviewing Methods for Determining 'Disproportionate Impact', 171 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) AA-1 (1998).
162. See SAB Recommends Steps for EPA to Follow in Analyses of "Disproportionate Impacts", 209 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) A-3 (1998); SAB to Begin Reviewing Methods for Determining 'Disproportionate Impact', 171 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) AA-1 (1998).
163. See FOREMAN, supra note 2, at 121("many movement partisans unhesitatingly assign race a dominant causal role leading to unfair outcomes.")
164. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (visited Oct. 26, 1998) 〈http://es.epa.gov/oeca/oej/titlevi.html〉(explaining how EPA will investigate claims that issuance by states of environmental pollution permits violates environmental justice goals).
165. See John Pendergrass, EPA Discrimination Guidance Dispute, ENVTL. F., Sept.-Oct., 1998, at 6; States Negative on Interim Guidance, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 232, 232 (1998); Comments on Title VI Guidance Seek Clearer Definitions, Input from More Parties, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 234, 235 (1998). To be sure, there is no shortage of concern being expressed from industry either. See, e.g., David Warner & James Worsham, The EPA's New Reach, NATION'S BUSINESS, Oct. 1998, at 12.
166. See John Pendergrass, EPA Discrimination Guidance Dispute, ENVTL. F., Sept.-Oct., 1998, at 6; States Negative on Interim Guidance, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 232, 232 (1998); Comments on Title VI Guidance Seek Clearer Definitions, Input from More Parties, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 234, 235 (1998). To be sure, there is no shortage of concern being expressed from industry either. See, e.g., David Warner & James Worsham, The EPA's New Reach, NATION'S BUSINESS, Oct. 1998, at 12.
167. See John Pendergrass, EPA Discrimination Guidance Dispute, ENVTL. F., Sept.-Oct., 1998, at 6; States Negative on Interim Guidance, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 232, 232 (1998); Comments on Title VI Guidance Seek Clearer Definitions, Input from More Parties, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 234, 235 (1998). To be sure, there is no shortage of concern being expressed from industry either. See, e.g., David Warner & James Worsham, The EPA's New Reach, NATION'S BUSINESS, Oct. 1998, at 12.
168. See John Pendergrass, EPA Discrimination Guidance Dispute, ENVTL. F., Sept.-Oct., 1998, at 6; States Negative on Interim Guidance, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 232, 232 (1998); Comments on Title VI Guidance Seek Clearer Definitions, Input from More Parties, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 234, 235 (1998). To be sure, there is no shortage of concern being expressed from industry either. See, e.g., David Warner & James Worsham, The EPA's New Reach, NATION'S BUSINESS, Oct. 1998, at 12.
169. The matter involved a complaint filed with EPA alleging that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality violated Title VI in issuing a Clean Air Act permit to Select Steel Corporation of America for construction of a $175 million steel recycling mill in Flint, Michigan. See Michigan Governor Blames EPA Policy for Company Decision to Scrap Factory Plan, 172 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) AA-1 (1998); Michigan DEQ Chief Says EPA Narrowing Issues Considered in Title VI Complaints, 225 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) A-1 (1998).
170. The matter involved a complaint filed with EPA alleging that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality violated Title VI in issuing a Clean Air Act permit to Select Steel Corporation of America for construction of a $175 million steel recycling mill in Flint, Michigan. See Michigan Governor Blames EPA Policy for Company Decision to Scrap Factory Plan, 172 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) AA-1 (1998); Michigan DEQ Chief Says EPA Narrowing Issues Considered in Title VI Complaints, 225 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) A-1 (1998).
171. On October 30, 1998, the EPA Office of Civil Rights issued a letter of decision dismissing the complaint, primarily because the evidence demonstrated that the facility would not cause violations of health-based ambient air quality standards and technology-based emission limits enforced under the Clean Air Act. See EPA File No. 5R-98-R5 (visited Feb. 23, 1999) 〈http://www.epa.gov/region5/steelcvr.html〉. See also EPA Panel Upholds Flint Steel Mill Permit; Michigan Seeks Dismissal of Complaint, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1119, 1119 (1998); EPA Dismisses Complaint on Proposed Steel Plant in Michigan, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1351, 1351 (1998); EPA Dismisses Michigan Complaint; State Officials Still Wary of New Policy, 211 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) AA-1 (1998). A collection of environmental and public interest groups petitioned EPA to reopen the complaint, alleging that it was politically motivated and presents a dangerous precedent for EPA's Title VI policy. See Paul Connolly, Groups Say EPA Must Reconsider Dismissal of Michigan Civil Rights Act Complaint, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 2, 1999, at A-5. As of this writing EPA had not ruled on the petition.
172. On October 30, 1998, the EPA Office of Civil Rights issued a letter of decision dismissing the complaint, primarily because the evidence demonstrated that the facility would not cause violations of health-based ambient air quality standards and technology-based emission limits enforced under the Clean Air Act. See EPA File No. 5R-98-R5 (visited Feb. 23, 1999) 〈http://www.epa.gov/region5/steelcvr.html〉. See also EPA Panel Upholds Flint Steel Mill Permit; Michigan Seeks Dismissal of Complaint, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1119, 1119 (1998); EPA Dismisses Complaint on Proposed Steel Plant in Michigan, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1351, 1351 (1998); EPA Dismisses Michigan Complaint; State Officials Still Wary of New Policy, 211 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) AA-1 (1998). A collection of environmental and public interest groups petitioned EPA to reopen the complaint, alleging that it was politically motivated and presents a dangerous precedent for EPA's Title VI policy. See Paul Connolly, Groups Say EPA Must Reconsider Dismissal of Michigan Civil Rights Act Complaint, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 2, 1999, at A-5. As of this writing EPA had not ruled on the petition.
173. On October 30, 1998, the EPA Office of Civil Rights issued a letter of decision dismissing the complaint, primarily because the evidence demonstrated that the facility would not cause violations of health-based ambient air quality standards and technology-based emission limits enforced under the Clean Air Act. See EPA File No. 5R-98-R5 (visited Feb. 23, 1999) 〈http://www.epa.gov/region5/steelcvr.html〉. See also EPA Panel Upholds Flint Steel Mill Permit; Michigan Seeks Dismissal of Complaint, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1119, 1119 (1998); EPA Dismisses Complaint on Proposed Steel Plant in Michigan, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1351, 1351 (1998); EPA Dismisses Michigan Complaint; State Officials Still Wary of New Policy, 211 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) AA-1 (1998). A collection of environmental and public interest groups petitioned EPA to reopen the complaint, alleging that it was politically motivated and presents a dangerous precedent for EPA's Title VI policy. See Paul Connolly, Groups Say EPA Must Reconsider Dismissal of Michigan Civil Rights Act Complaint, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 2, 1999, at A-5. As of this writing EPA had not ruled on the petition.
174. On October 30, 1998, the EPA Office of Civil Rights issued a letter of decision dismissing the complaint, primarily because the evidence demonstrated that the facility would not cause violations of health-based ambient air quality standards and technology-based emission limits enforced under the Clean Air Act. See EPA File No. 5R-98-R5 (visited Feb. 23, 1999) 〈http://www.epa.gov/region5/steelcvr.html〉. See also EPA Panel Upholds Flint Steel Mill Permit; Michigan Seeks Dismissal of Complaint, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1119, 1119 (1998); EPA Dismisses Complaint on Proposed Steel Plant in Michigan, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1351, 1351 (1998); EPA Dismisses Michigan Complaint; State Officials Still Wary of New Policy, 211 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) AA-1 (1998). A collection of environmental and public interest groups petitioned EPA to reopen the complaint, alleging that it was politically motivated and presents a dangerous precedent for EPA's Title VI policy. See Paul Connolly, Groups Say EPA Must Reconsider Dismissal of Michigan Civil Rights Act Complaint, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 2, 1999, at A-5. As of this writing EPA had not ruled on the petition.
175. On October 30, 1998, the EPA Office of Civil Rights issued a letter of decision dismissing the complaint, primarily because the evidence demonstrated that the facility would not cause violations of health-based ambient air quality standards and technology-based emission limits enforced under the Clean Air Act. See EPA File No. 5R-98-R5 (visited Feb. 23, 1999) 〈http://www.epa.gov/region5/steelcvr.html〉. See also EPA Panel Upholds Flint Steel Mill Permit; Michigan Seeks Dismissal of Complaint, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1119, 1119 (1998); EPA Dismisses Complaint on Proposed Steel Plant in Michigan, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1351, 1351 (1998); EPA Dismisses Michigan Complaint; State Officials Still Wary of New Policy, 211 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) AA-1 (1998). A collection of environmental and public interest groups petitioned EPA to reopen the complaint, alleging that it was politically motivated and presents a dangerous precedent for EPA's Title VI policy. See Paul Connolly, Groups Say EPA Must Reconsider Dismissal of Michigan Civil Rights Act Complaint, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 2, 1999, at A-5. As of this writing EPA had not ruled on the petition.
176. See Environmental Justice: Draft Revision of Guidance for Processing Rights Complaints Expected by Mid-1999, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1807 (1999). An advisory panel EPA created to assist in the revisions was unable to reach consensus recommendations and instead will be delivering to EPA a report detailing the members' divergent views about the issue. See Cheryl Hogue, Title VI Advisory Panel Report Sets Out Issues, Gives No Recommendation, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 2, 1999, at A-7.
177. See Environmental Justice: Draft Revision of Guidance for Processing Rights Complaints Expected by Mid-1999, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1807 (1999). An advisory panel EPA created to assist in the revisions was unable to reach consensus recommendations and instead will be delivering to EPA a report detailing the members' divergent views about the issue. See Cheryl Hogue, Title VI Advisory Panel Report Sets Out Issues, Gives No Recommendation, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 2, 1999, at A-7.
178. A similar claim recently was filed against the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, alleging the agency has engaged in Clean Air Act permit and enforcement decisions having racially unjust impacts. See Two Environmental Groups File Civil Rights Complaint Against TNRCC Over Air Permits, 243 Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) A-7 (1998).
179. Foreman predicts that "[i]f pursued aggressively, environmental justice may exacerbate aspects of environmental policymaking that have been widely bemoaned (such as economic inefficiency, muddled policy priorities, the gap between expert and public perceptions of risk, and local inflexibility on siting issues)." FOREMAN, supra note 2, at 3. It is precisely those aspects of mainstream environmentalism that sustainable development advocates hope to rid from environmental policymaking; hence, to the extent environmental justice stands in their way, the two may come to blows.
180. This is particularly likely as environmental policy attention focuses increasingly on regional and global issues such as acid rain, global warming, and fisheries depletion. Environmental justice as a "movement is too weak, has too few resources, and has too strong a local orientation to be a significant separate presence on such national and international matters." Id. at 122.