1 The usual disclaimer applies. Roberto Bolaño, 2666 (London: Picador 2009), p. 808. This article is dedicated to Prof. Daniel Thürer who has retired from the University of Zurich this summer. The transdisciplinary spirit that Daniel Thürer cultivated at the Rechberg at University of Zurich as well as his “library of glorious books” inspired this article.

2 Bernstein, Peter L., Against the Gods – The Remarkable Story of Risk (New York: John Wiley & Sons 1996), at p. 246.Google Scholar

3 Taleb, Nassim Nicholas, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (London: Penguin Books 2008).Google Scholar

4 Bernstein, Against the Gods – The Remarkable Story of Risk, supra note 2, at p. 334.

5 As an example see Hornstein, Donald T., “Complexity Theory, Adaptation, and Administrative Law”, 54 Duke Law Journal (2005), pp. 913 et sqq. Google Scholar, who under the umbrella of complexity discusses diverse approaches such as genetic algorithms (p. 936), evolutionary game theory (p. 949), or sensitive dependence on initial conditions (p. 926). Hornstein of course also relies on the classic Hardin, Garrett, “The Tragedy of the Commons”, 162 Science (1968), pp. 1243 et sqq. Google ScholarPubMed

6 Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1970).Google Scholar

7 Resolution 1244, UN Security Council, 10 June 1999, S/RES/1244, SCOR 54th Year 32.

8 Federal Constitutional Court (Germany), [judgment re Lisbon treaty], BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, 30 June 2009.

9 See, e.g., Weller, Marc, Contested Statehood – Kosovo's Struggle for Independence (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009), p. 3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who under the title “Fragmentation and chaos” states: “Instead, the example of Kosovo points towards the increasingly complex, difficult, and in some aspects, frightening post-modern world we are now entering. It is a world that has lost the certainties of brutal but stable classical power politics, and of the Westphalian international order, without gaining the benefits of a more advanced international constitutional system of global power regulation.”

10 The most widely read work on chaos is the seminal book by Gleick, James, Chaos: Making a New Science (London: Minerva 1997 (first published in 1988))Google Scholar. Sardar, Ziauddin and Abrama, Iwona, Chaos – a Graphic Guide (Cambridge: Icon Books 1999)Google Scholar is even more accessible and therefore a good choice for those who have little time. For this article I relied on Peitgen, Heinz-Otto, Jürgens, Hartmut and Saupe, Dietmar, Chaos and Fractals – New Frontiers of Science, 2nd ed. (New York: Springer 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which is very accurate and technical (on 864 pp.), but less recommendable for those who are more interested in legal issues. Some aspects of chaos theory are developed in the popular book about emergence by Holland, John H., Emergence: From Chaos to Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1998)Google Scholar. A useful list of legal articles dealing with chaos and complex systems from various perspectives can be found at the blog Jim Chen, “Jurisdynamics”, 2010, available on the Internet at <http://jurisdynamics.blogspot.com/>, in the entry by J.B. Ruhl, “Complexity Theory in Legal Scholarship”, 27 July 2006, available on the Internet at <http://jurisdynamics.blogspot.com/2006/07/complexity-theory-in-legal-scholarship.html> (last accessed on 1 July 2010).

11 The subjects of risk, uncertainty, and doubt have received more attention by legal scholars – see, for instance, Rosie Cooney and Lang, Andrew T.F., “Taking Uncertainty Seriously: Adaptive Governance and International Trade”, 18 EJIL (2007), pp. 523 et sqq. Google Scholar; Vos, Ellen (ed.), European Risk Governance – Its Science, Its Inclusiveness and Its Effectiveness (Mannheim: Connex 2008)Google Scholar; Vos, Ellen and Everson, Michelle (eds), Uncertain Risks Regulated (Abingdon: Routledge 2009)Google Scholar (focussing on risk governance, food safety, and genetically modified organisms); or Vinuales, Jorge E., “Legal Techniques for Dealing with Scientific Uncertainty in Environmental Law”, 43 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (2010), pp. 437 et sqq. Google Scholar; for the topic of doubts, see, e.g., Abbt, Christine and Diggelmann, Oliver (eds), Zweifelsfälle (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2007).Google Scholar

12 As an example from markets and securities law, consider Cunningham, Lawrence A., “From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis”, 62 George Washington Law Review (1994), pp. 546 et sqq.Google Scholar

13 “The Butterfly Effect”, parts 1–3, directed by Eric Bress and J. Mackye Gruber (2004), John R. Leonetti (2006), and Seth Grossmann (2009), respectively.

14 Mandelbrot, Benoît, Les objets fractals: forme, hasard et dimension (Paris: Flammarion 1975)Google Scholar; see also Mandelbrot, Benoît, Fractals and Scaling in Finance – Discontinuity, Concentration, Risk (New York: Springer 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 The properties of chaos as explained here are apparently only confirmed for the iteration of transformations. With a more general definition of chaos pending, the explanation given here has to suffice for the moment – not just for this article, but in general (see Peitgen, Jürgens and Saupe, Chaos and Fractals – New Frontiers of Science, supra note 10, at p. 496).

16 Peitgen, Jürgens and Saupe, Chaos and Fractals – New Frontiers of Science, supra note 10, at p. 496 et sqq. The following description loosely follows their explanations (which in turn are based on Devaney, Robert L., An Introduction to Chaotic Dynamical Systems, 2nd ed. (Redwood City: Addison-Wesley 1989))Google Scholar. For more details which fully live up to the rigours of mathematics see their proofs.

17 Opus cit., at p. 42.

18 Opus cit., at p. 480.

19 Opus cit., at p. 520 (“Chaos for the Quadratic Iterator”).

20 Scott, Robert E., “Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox”, 35 William and Mary Law Review (1993), pp. 329 et sqq., at p. 331.Google Scholar

21 WTO Panel, China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/R, 12 August 2009.

22 WTO Appellate Body, China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/AB/R, 21 December 2009.

23 International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (Trial Chamber), Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinovi´c and others, IT-05-87-T, 26 February 2009.

24 Federal Constitutional Court (Germany), [judgment re Lisbon treaty], supra note 8.

25 For a similar approach that tries to make out fractal structures in courts’ practice of referring to established case law see Post, David G. and Eisen, Michael B., “How Long is the Coastline of the Law? Thoughts on the Fractal Nature of Legal Systems”, 29 Journal of Legal Studies (2000), pp. 545 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Scott, “Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox”, supra note 20, at p. 330.

27 See already Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A., “Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis”, 19 Journal of Law and Economics (1976), pp. 249 et sqq., at pp. 249–250, on the role and emergence of precedents.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 ECJ, Akrich, C-109/01, ECR 2003 I-09607, 23 September 2003.

29 Filliez, Fabrice, “Libre circulations de personnes et regroupement familial: à propos de la prise en compte de la jurisprudence de la Cour de Luxembourg par le Tribunal fédéral”, 16 SZIER (2006), pp. 237 et sqq., at p. 240.Google Scholar

30 ECJ, Jia, C-1/05, ECR 2007 I-1, 9 January 2007.

31 Note that the ECJ in Eind seemed to put Akrich further in perspective (Eind concerned the third country national child of an EU citizen; see ECJ, Eind, C-291/05, ECR 2007 I-10719, 11 December 2007).

32 ECJ, Metock, C-127/08, ECR 2008 I-6241, 25 July 2008.

33 Directive on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/ EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/ EEC, European Parliament and Council, 29 April 2004, 2004/38/ EC (Official Journal L 158/77 of 30 April 2004).

34 Regulation on freedom of movement of workers within the Community, Council, 15 October 1968, Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 (O.J. L 257/2 of 19 October 1968).

35 ECJ, Metock, supra note 32, at paras. 56–58.

36 Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, 21 June 1999, in force 1 June 2002, SR 0.142.112.681 (or in English in O.J. L 114/6 of 30 April 2002).

37 Technically, the Joint Committee established by the Agreement on Free Movement could determine the implications of such judgments (Article 16(2) AFM). However, so far the Joint Committee has apparently not made use of that power.

38 SFSC, A. and B. v. Departement für Justiz (Slovak-Italian family reunification), 2A.91/2003 (BGE 130 II 1), 4 November 2003, at para. 3.6.1 (SFSC is the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. For reasons of recognition and ease of use by non-Swiss lawyers the judgments of the SFSC are given abbreviated case names in this article. Although each relates to the facts of the case, these case names are my own creation and are not official. Officially, Swiss judgments are cited by their number, e.g., BGE 130 II 1 (if in the official publication) or 2C_587/2008 (if not in the official publication)).

39 SFSC, Slovak-Italian family reunification (BGE 130 II 1), supra note 38, at para. 3.6.4.

40 SFSC, A. v. Service de la population (expulsion of a Libyan), 2C_42/2007 (BGE 134 II 10), 30 November 2007, at para. 3.5.2– 3.5.5.

41 SFSC, X. v. Sicherheitsdirektion (Turkish parent), 2C_607/2008 (BGE 135 II 369), 24 March 2009, at para. 2; SFSC, X. v. Service de la population (Kosovar marriage of convenience), 2C_587/2008, 4 December 2008, at para. 2.1.

42 SFSC, X. v. Sicherheitsdirektion (Palestinian spouse), 2C_196/2009 (BGE 136 II 5), 29 September 2009.

43 Before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court decided the case of the Palestinian, other authors also had thought it unlikely that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court would follow the ECJ's new Metock doctrine (see for instance Astrid Epiney, “Von Akrich über Jia bis Metock: zur Anwendbarkeit der gemeinschaftsrechtlichen Regeln über den Familiennachzug – Gleichzeitig eine Anmerkung zu EuGH, Rs. C-127/08 [Metock], Urteil vom 25.7.2008”, 6 EuR (2008), pp. 840 et sqq.).

44 SFSC, expulsion of a Libyan (BGE 134 II 10), supra note 40.

45 SFSC, Palestinian spouse (BGE 136 II 5), supra note 42, at para. 3.6.1.

46 Opus cit., at para. 3.6.2.

47 Opus cit., at para. 3.6.3.

48 Opus cit., at para. 3.6.1 [translation by the author].

49 Opus cit., at para. 3.6.2.

50 Opus cit., at para. 3.4. [translation by the author].

51 Consider in particular the fact that the Swiss authorities were asked by the federal agency for migration to continue to apply the Akrich doctrine despite the ECJ's Metock judgment: Bundesamt für Migration, Rundschreiben, 2008.09.08-002, Bern-Wabern, 20 October 2008, available on the Internet at <http://www.bfm.admin.ch/etc/medialib/data/migration/rechtsgrundlagen/weisungen_und_kreisschreiben/weisungen_und_rundschreiben.Par.0041.File.tmp/20081020-rs-d.pdf>.

52 For a similar perspective of the American Supreme Court, see Reynolds, Glenn Harlan, “Chaos and the Court”, 91 Columbia Law Review (1991), pp. 110 et sqq., notably at pp. 113–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 At the very least, rules that profess to be eternal require thorough discussion, such as in Dreier, Horst, Gilt das Grundgesetz ewig? Fünf Kapitel zum modernen Verfassungstaat (München: Carl Friedrich von Siemens Stiftung 2009)Google Scholar, or Unger, Sebastian, “‘Human Dignitiy Shall be Inviolable’ – Dealing with a Constitutional Taboo”, in Huber, Peter M. and Ziegler, Katja (eds), Current Problems in the Protection of Human Rights: Perspectives from Germany and the UK, (Oxford: Hart 2010, forthcoming, on file with the author).Google Scholar

54 Reynolds, “Chaos and the Court”, supra note 52, at p. 113, referring to “[t]he absurdity of expecting exact predictions in law […]”.

55 ECJ, Keck and Mithouard, C-267/91 and C-268/91, ECR 1993 I-6097, 24 November 1993.

56 ECJ, Dassonville, 8/74, Rec.1974, 837, 11 July 1974.

57 ECJ, Kadi, C-402 and C-415/05, ECR 2008 I-6351, 3 September 2008.

58 See only the contradictory statements in International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self- Government of Kosovo (Request for Advisory Opinion), public hearings (oral statements), CR 2009/32, 1–11 December 2009.

58 See Lorenzo, Vincent Di, “Legislative Chaos: An Exploratory Study”, 12 Yale Law & Policy Review (1994), pp. 425 et sqq. Google Scholar who applies chaos theory to the process of legislation and for whom “chaos theory […] serves to sustain hope in the democratic process”: “the aperiodic nature of legislative decisions […] makes them not only inherently unpredictable but also intrinsically creative” (all on p. 429).

59 Schmitt, Carl, Politische Theologie – Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von der Souveränität, 2nd ed. (München: Duncker & Humblot 1934)Google Scholar, beginning with the famous sentence: “Souverän ist, wer über den Ausnahmezustand entscheidet.” (at p. 11).

60 Cooney and Lang, “Taking Uncertainty Seriously: Adaptive Governance and International Trade”, supra note 11.

61 Staehelin, Jenö C. A., “‘When West Meets East’ – Verhandlungsstil und Verhandlungstaktik als Problem interkultureller Verständigung”, in Corti, Mario A. and Ziegler, Peter (eds), Diplomatische Negoziation: Festschrift Franz A. Blankart zum 60. Geburtstag, (Bern: Haupt 1997), pp. 10 et sqq. Google Scholar, at p. 18: “Eine letzte Schwierigkeit besteht darin, dass nach landläufiger japanischer Meinung jedes Abkommen anzupassen ist, wenn sich die Umstände ändern. Auch wir kennen diese Rechtsregel für Extremfälle (clausula rebus sic stantibus). Aber nach japanischer Auffassung ist dies ein häufiger und fast normaler Vorgang. Ein Abkommen ist oft nur ein Schritt, dem ganz natürlicherweise weitere zu folgen haben.”

62 ‘Resolution 1244, UN Security Council, supra note 7.

63 Joint Action on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO, Council of the European Union, 4 February 2008, 2008/124/CFSP, OJ L 42/92 of 16 February 2008.

64 Wet, Erika de, “The Governance of Kosovo: Security Council Resolution 1244 and the Establishment and Functioning of EULEX”, 103 AJIL (2009), pp. 83 et sqq., at p. 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 Starting from similar premises, but with a much more rigorous application of chaos theory to tort law involving phase space and chaotic attractors: Adams, Edward S., Brumwell, Gordon B. and Glazier, James A., “At the End of Palsgrave, there is Chaos: An Assessment of Proximate Cause in Light of Chaos Theory (Essay)”, 59 U. Pitt. L. Rev. (1998), pp. 507 et sqq.Google Scholar

66 In a similar vein for complicity in state responsibility, see Nolte, Georg and Aust, Helmut Philipp, “Equivocal Helpers – Complicit States, Mixed Messages and International Law”, 58 ICLQ (2009), pp. 1 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67 See, as an example, the case International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (Appeals Chamber), Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brd–anin, IT-99-36-A, 3 April 2007, at paras. 426–434, relying on International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (Appeals Chamber), Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, IT-94-I-A, 15 July 1999 (see notably at para. 220).

68 Federal Constitutional Court (Germany), [judgment re Lisbon treaty], supra note 8, at paras. 263 and 284.

69 Opus cit., at paras. 298 et sqq.

70 This criticism is shared by Joschka Fischer, “Lissabon-Vertrag: Ein nationaler Riegel”, Die Zeit, 9 July 2009. For a critical analysis of the decision see, for instance, Halberstam, Daniel and Möllers, Christoph, “The German Constitutional Court says ‘Ja zu Deutschland’”, 10 GLJ (2009), pp. 1241 et sqq. Google Scholar

71 The German Federal Constitutional Court in fact did include in its decision some elements of the approach proposed here. For instance, it held that the European Union cannot and need not fulfil the same democratic principles as the Federal Republic (Federal Constitutional Court (Germany), [judgment re Lisbon treaty], supra note 8, at para. 267).

72 Bolaño, 2666, supra note 1, at p. 736.

73 See Hughes, Scott H., “Understanding Conflict in a Postmodern World”, 87 Marquette Law Review (2004), pp. 681 et sqq., at pp. 682–683Google Scholar, for the principles governing the former, linear scientific approach and the discussion of new scientific developments mainly in cognitive sciences.

74 Bernstein, Against the Gods – The Remarkable Story of Risk, supra note 2, at p. 333: “So far, the accomplishments of the theory appear modest compared to its claims. Its practitioners have managed to cup the butterfly in their hands, but they have not yet traced all the airflows impelled by the flutterings of its wings. But they are trying.”