The decryption of law as an exact normative science using fractals 63
and the Private Law branch, which in turn, are divided into several other
secondary branches, each one of these being considered a unit for a random scale
of observation, that will always satisfy the part-whole condition of similarity.
The forth and the last condition, relevant to point out the presence of the
theory of fractals in law is represented by the simple and recursive character of fractals.
The rule of law must be flexible and accessible to understanding, being
desirable the application of as few methods of interpretation, in order to achieve
the effects considered ab initio at the adoption.
There should be also taken into account the cumulative existence of the
fractal’s recursive character, in our case, of the rule of law, along with that of
simplicity. The recursive character is translated through the repeatedly, automatic
and unlimited application of the rule of law. In the case of Law, the legal norm as
fractal, can be implemented whenever necessary, without limit of application,
without any restrictions, as long as the rule of law is in force.
Accordingly, the present approach attempted to show on the one hand, that
law is a normative science, by analyzing the theories and relating us to the
allegations of the great coryphaeus, theorists of law at national and international
level as Kant, Kelsen, Djuvara, and on the other hand, that Law represents an exact
science, characters of the science of law evidenced through the theory of fractals.
If until now, the study of law as a self-contained social science or in connection
with other border sciences was deemed sufficient, it becomes thus necessary a new
approach, in relation to sciences apparently without intrinsic connections, but
which finally determines, proves and fixes its very character.
The development of the new technologies and the sciences of the future will
reveal certainly new ways of law configuration and study at the international level
and will strengthen the value of the assertions of the present study.
We notice that the theories launched so far, according to which, the law is only
a social science, should be assessed under benefit of inventory, being taken into
account as long as the type of society will not be changed. It should be appreciated,
however, when the portrait of the new era will be changed, being determined by
the paradigm of a future society, namely, the Informational Society, which sure
will serve to influence and configure maybe, in another way, the science of law.
It will not take long and the first laws designed entirely by computers, with
little human intervention, will occur. We appreciate that the problem of the
supreme norm of Kelsen remains an open question, because the type of society in
which the man of the future will live has to answer to ”how?” and ”in what way?”
and ”by whom?” the supreme norm shall be generated and, even ”what form?”
will it have, so that the complice in relation to it to offer a systemic result and pure
of law. The paradigm of the ”supreme norm generator” seems that will be