The Logical Evolution of the Construction of Legal Spatiality

Tian Ju

Abstract： Currently， increasing numbers of subjects in academic circles are turning to the research of space theory. The research on the space of law has both academic and application value. This paper， from the perspective of legal space， carries on the logical deduction from three different dimensions： dimension composition， function mechanism and research method. The purpose of this study is to explore the possibility of constructing a legal space by using abstract mathematical model， especially in the context of rapid development of information technology， with the methodology of system law initiated by Luhmann， to explain， construct and standardize this mechanism， enrich the theoretical research of law， and provide a new perspective of abstract， overall and systematic research for legal research.

Key words： legal space; information space; math modeling

CLC： D 90-051 ? ? ?DC： A Article ID： 2096-9783（2021）04-0108-08

1 Introduction

From the perspective of system theory， the autopoietic characteristics of normative space represented by law can achieve the system harmony with various external physical spaces including data space on the basis of realizing the precision operation of its own model operation mechanism， so as to achieve the important mission of "adjusting the other through self—adjustment". This involves the construction of a transformation mechanism of multiple spaces， that is to say， it is a problem of how to establish the transformation mechanism between the possibility space of legal normative behavior （normative space） and the possibility space of realistic behavior （realistic space）. Luhmann and Toybuna's thoughts on the study of legal society contain their own emotional legal system[1]. By using this distinction， the closed theory of recursive self -reproduction and the open theory related to the environment， as well as the autonomy theory of the rule system， can be regarded as the theoretical forerunner of the thought of legal space. In their view， law is a closed system in norms and open system in cognition. The self-creation of the legal system is closed in terms of norms. Only the legal system can grant its elements legal norms and construct them as elements. At the same time， and precisely associated with this closed， the legal system is an open system in cognition[2]. In the legal space， the systematic legal order is a process of self -correlation cycles of legal norms， legal acts， legal operation and legal methods. The legal system observes， describes， adjusts and reproduces the whole social order through self-correlation. The legal system operationalizes the world by executing its own code.

In recent years， with the development of information technology， the legal theory developed in the era of digital technology has produced new ideas. The hermeneutic significance of information is that its concepts and methods have become important tools for deconstructing traditional social models and data space reality. This way of thinking not only has simple forms， but also has rich connotations. Information， as a regulatory mechanism and means， enables the social structure to operate effectively in this paradigm， thereby operating and achieving paths in a multiple structure. Information can be encoded and transmitted， but the existence of it is independent of the encoding and transmission process. With the continuous information and network technology and the continuous penetration of scientific rationality into social culture， a new kind of social life space is brewing and developing， that is， information space. The relationships between humans， machines and information are intertwined to form a new spatial system that intersects with each other. This technology is not only a way to obtain world information， but also an important model for reconstructing the objective world. This non-linear semantic network is giving rise to new thinking about what the world is.

Therefore， legal space research is different from spatial legal research in that it emphasizes that the law operates in a closed network autonomous system， and realizes self -relevance through the structural coupling relationship. Its structure is interacted and connected by many network elements. That is to say， this kind of research is based on the thinking and analysis of the real space in the sociology of law initiated by Luhmann， and it is a description and analysis of the structure of the real space with abstract logic[3]. However， in the actual operation process， a normative system can only selectively "absorb" complex life world situations according to the relevant standards stipulated by the norms themselves. This selective normative activity constitutes the focus of questioning the self- created legal system.

2 The Dimensional Composition of Legal Spatiality

From a vertical perspective， the construction of legal space emphasizes that， as a social regulation mechanism， the principle of the operating mechanism of law is to realize the adjustment and control of social relations through the optimization of the social operating structure and the coordination of behavior[4]. In other words， as a normative system， law cannot directly adjust the actual social interest relations and behavior patterns， but through the legislative behavior of legislators to standardize and systematize idealized social operation patterns， thereby abstractly forming legal systems and categories of various cultures. The systematization of law means to establish the connection of all the principles of the law obtained by analysis， so that they form a logically clear， logically non-contradictory and most importantly， a system of rules without omissions in principle. In the above process， the actual and concrete norms of social operation are concretized by abstract rules. In the process of continuous self-improvement， this rule system forms a logical spatial structure and forms a space for independent operation. This kind of normative space applies the abstract formal rule system to adjust the actual social behavior through the implementation of norms， so as to realize the purpose of adjusting social relations by means of substantive norms. The self-adaptive characteristics of the normative space can realize the systemic harmony with the external space based on the accurate operation of its own model operating mechanism， thereby achieving the important mission of adjusting the other through self-adjustment. Law makers establish behavior standards based on social values and fair order， and delimit the realistic possibility space of behavior in the social life of social subjects. Regarding the behavior space that conforms to the justice of society as a whole， the normative system is abstracted through legislative technology， and the constraint conditions used by social control are established to define the possibility space of actual behavior norms.

From the horizontal dimension of the coupling between the data space and the legal space， this involves the construction of multiple space transformation mechanisms， that is to say， how to establish the transformation mechanism between the legal normative behavior possibility space and the actual behavior possibility space[5].The purpose of the social management model is to build a sophisticated operating mechanism. Through the prototype model design and the specific computer software environment， the effective processing of the input system information is realized， so as to achieve the purpose of machine-assisted manual information processing. For limited data input， this exquisite computer system environment can theoretically be competent and meet people's practical needs. However， with the advent of big data， the continuous accumulation of data will inevitably pose new challenges to the original system processing methods. For large and complex data structures， too much pursuit of the compactness and complexity of the system structure often brings about a decline in the processing capacity of the system. From the perspective of the coupling characteristics of the data space and the legal space， social information sources are a fuzzy subset. Through the algorithmic governance of the legal space， the originally fuzzy data is gradually clarified and systematized， so as to achieve the characterization and analysis of the true state. And through data integration， the goal of adjusting the digital portrait of the object's behavior is achieved. However， because the current analysis tools are mainly developed for traditional structured data， the technical standards for data mining in the era of big data have not been truly realized. Therefore， there is still a lack of a necessary bridge and link between the in-depth combination of data collection and processing. This is also an important issue for the content of this research. For example， in the field of evidence law， the value of information cannot be evaluated before it is obtained. The risk of such evidence activities is a key issue that must be considered. For the consideration of how to reduce the cost of such evidence search， effective data mining technology must be used in the construction of the evidence relationship layer system to realize the effective integration and aggregation of fragmented information， and then gradually form a complete evidence map， so as to achieve the purpose of improving the efficiency of obtaining evidence elements. From the perspective of computational informatics， entity elements constitute the basic entity layer. On this basis， through the analysis and calculation of algorithms， the logical relationship between entity data is systematically filled. This process is called entity alignment in data mining technology. The above theories are of great significance in the research of evidence law in data space. This is because as evidence， obtaining and quantifying case information is not just simply summarizing， listing， and comparing data， but also requires more professional processing techniques to judge and process the source and logic of the data， and to dig out the relational elements implicit in the evidence. From the perspective of the collection， analysis and processing of evidence， the construction of an evidence algorithm is to use the data carried by the evidence as an entity to realize the coupling between the information and the elements set by legal regulations in the data space. The realization process of this coupling system is to search for and locate evidence materials with validity and relevance characteristics from the vast data space in the massive data space， and draw conclusions that can be used as the basis for judgment or decision-making. The realization process of this coupling system is a process of searching and locating evidence materials with validity and relevance characteristics from the vast data space in the massive data space， and drawing conclusions that can be used as the basis for judgment or decision-making[6]. Therefore， in the process of evidence collection， the essence of algorithm operation is to realize the mutual matching of the data relationship between the substantive legal norm elements and the actual evidence facts. Through fuzzy algorithm matching with the normative elements as the entity reference， the correlation characteristics behind the data and behavior are fully explored， which completely breaks away from the traditional manual evidence collection mode of correlation matching， thus realizing the fundamental transformation of the value judgment of the theory of evidence law from entity priority to relationship priority.

3 The Functional Mechanism of Legal Spatiality

As with the abstraction and mapping of the complex social relations in the real world， the formation of the rule system has a distinct non-quantitative hue. However， the legal system is an organic whole， and the internal requirement of the legal space is the connection between the top and the bottom， the coordination between the left and the right， and the scientific unification. In the process of internalizing the external environment into the legal system itself， the complexity of the external environment is mapped to the normative internal space， and the normative characteristics of the legal norms system are projected into the external space， so that the legal relations can effectively adjust the social relations through the simple operation （or it can be called operation） of the space elements of the legal norms system. In recent years， through the introduction of systemic thoughts in the field of traditional legal studies， the path to model research on legal concepts， systems， and the mechanism of system generation and operation has been opened. Therefore， the normative space accurately describes the basic characteristics of the external world through its own internal systemization and modeling， and reflects the external social behavior through a normative structure.

3.1 Explanation Mechanism

What the data space creates is a new information cultural space and information survival method， which transforms the virtual bit data into the digital one， realizing the transformation and symbolic processing of human real social information. It is necessary to use abstract logical analysis methods to construct abstract legal relations. The establishment and use of fixed legal concepts must rely on logical methods， which make the components of the legal rule code system more independent， thus ensuring the self-maintenance of the code rule system and its reproduction in the next stage. With the complication of modern society， the legal system on the one hand increases the complication of internal operations， which is a concentrated manifestation of the autopoiesis of its own system operation. At the same time， it also adopts a standardized and structured processing model and employs the digital and information "compression" technology to achieve the statutory treatment of complex society. The essence of computer code operation is to study the problem of algorithm optimization path selection， not only researching how to realize the function of calculation， but more importantly， aiming to discover the algorithm in it. The reductionists advocate the realization of screening the optimal path through the computer algorithm so as to obtain the final interpretation of the material world through the operation of the corresponding transformation mechanism. Specifically， after the legal norms are coded， the higher the degree of coding abstraction， the more profound the analysis and judgment of the causal relationship of the phenomenon obtained. Through coding and abstraction， invalid interference data that cannot be eliminated by language description can be removed. In a higher dimension， we can find implicit logic that symbolic logic and language cannot formalize and clearly express. At the same time， the process of legal code production is continuous and self-maintaining. "It is a network that changes rapidly through micro-changes that occur in the execution of legal actions that change the content of the legal order every second[7]". The behaviors within the legal order imply the possibility of new codes， which create new behaviors in the structure of the legal order， and finally form a cyclic autopoietic system. The rules of law applied through logical means are combined into an abstract legal principle that has no contradictory interrelationships and rationalizes them. It is these rigorous rules and the rigorous order relationship between the rules that give the legal order a coded operating law. Especially with the development of society， the reason why people need to use computer algorithms to solve practical social problems is that they need to use cognitive models to control the cognitive burden within the scope of the purpose. It is precisely because the real world contains too many variables， it is impossible to make decisions on the basis of a comprehensive grasp of these variables. The existence of complex logical relations based on reality will greatly exceed the scope of the limited cognitive ability of natural persons. The process of legal codification is to successfully transform the hard-to-handle real world into controllable operation objects through algorithms. In this process， the “concretization” of the normative space and the “abstraction” of the factual space realize the communication between the two spaces that are not originally at the same level.

Through the use of abstract research tools such as modeling， the normative system of law and the complex reality of law operation are abstracted， so that the essential connection between the operation of various elements is further grasped. From the perspective of system theory， the main object of discussion on the coupling between data space and legal space is the way in which the system as a whole and its elements are connected， the ways in which different levels and structural functions are connected， and the relationship between the system and the external environment. Applying the above ideas to the research process of data space and normative space is to accurately describe the composition， process， and relationship of normative elements through systematic and scientific methods. From a methodological point of view， although the conditions for the formation of various complex phenomena and complex systems in social life vary greatly， they can be simulated， described， expressed and calculated through certain abstractions and simulations， and through algorithms or rules in certain mathematical structures. Although the specific conditions for the formation of various complex phenomena and complex systems in nature and social life are very different， they can all be related to a certain mathematical structure. As a complex social system object， the model construction of the normative space is completely different from the traditional way of thinking.

3.2 Construction Mechanism

In a world that uses bits as the unit of construction， only with strict digital or coding language can legal norms play an adjusting role in the whole society; similarly， if the text is not deconstructed into complex binary codes， the process of legal coding cannot be realized at the technical level.

Then more rigorous computer analysis tools can be utilized to achieve the rigor of norm adjustment， thereby realizing the adjustment and regulation of real social relations at a higher level. However， since the objects adjusted by the law involve all aspects of society， it is a key issue whether the real space， containing a large number of subjects and the complex relationship network formed by it， can be coded. Traditional legal theory believes that on account of the vagueness and flexibility of legal rules， it is difficult for us to transform the law into a code form， a “programming” language that machines can understand. The research of modern computer law theory believes that the law can be simplified through simulation， that is， dealing with the ever-changing， chaotic， disorderly， and complex world of phenomena by “using simplicity to control complexity”. The coding process of the legal code is to realize the efficiency and function of information processing through differentiation and synthesis. In this process， the more effective the coding rules are， the smaller the scale and quantity of data required to describe the object. Through some “structural coupling” between systems， it provides a theoretical premise for a system to change other systems by changing itself for the purpose of realizing “structural synergy”. The number itself is information composed of 0 and 1， which is intangible. The factual information is contained in the carrier information and has outstanding technicality. For example， for a dynamic picture， the carrier information is the 0 and 1 that make up the dynamic picture， and the factual information is the meaning conveyed by the content of the picture. The transformation of the meaning of the data field is also a paradigm transformation based on meaning and space. Non-reductionists use a discrete networked model of related concepts to replace the hierarchical model structure advocated by reductionists， thus effectively avoiding the difference between reductionism and anti-reductionism[8].Therefore， in the research on the relationship between algorithm and law， algorithm mainly exists as a problem. However， the algorithm does not necessarily only mean a problem to the law， but can also provide tools. The so-called tools here are not technical tools in the sense of “l(fā)egal codification”， but thinking tools in the sense of methodology.

The legal space influences the internal mode of the external world and adjusts its own movement direction through internally produced information. The system internalizes the environment into an internal operating structure， and realizes the coupling between legal autopoiesis and the social system through this structural coupling relationship. The structural coupling requires new element information from the social subsystem， and realizes the construction of social structure through the coupling of legal norms in the legal system. From the construction of legal facts to the construction of social reality， the necessary environment for understanding information elements constitutes the intermediate system. The legal system encodes the world as a legal and illegal binary system or a network of legal acts expressed by binary codes. The law is defined as an autonomous system whose law runs in a closed network and acts through structural coupling relationships. The self-relevance of law lies in that its structure is intertwined and amended by the coupling relationship of many network elements. As a rule system， law is more generalized as a set of symbol system， possessing the characteristic of self-relevance and a cross reference between legal rules and concepts[9].It can be said that it is in the retrospection of the legal norms of different orders and levels that we can find the most basic effective norms and form the order structure system with hierarchical effect. As symbolic legal norms， they are reduced to various material spaces through practical actions. The relationship between the elements of legal space not only exists at the abstract level， but can also be projected into the real space structure. Language is the actual coding system， which constructs a specific spatial factual structure. The spatialization of law is the process and fact that the text and symbol of law， as the legal externalization， are reduced to the dimension of the real space， as well as the internal relevance of interaction between the two paths， namely， the path from the legal text to the space and the path from the real space to the legal text.

3.3 Normative Mechanism

Based on the abstract mathematical model， the abstract and simplified mathematical structure partly targeted for the real world realizes the extraction， analysis， and summary of the information of the real object through the abstract depiction of the real object， and then realizes the important value of economics research in a more standardized and predictable range. In the process of model construction， how to quantify textual data into data types that can be recognized and calculated by computer systems constitutes the basis and premise for any system to achieve the structured research of “data”. Therefore， drawing on the model method of the information economics， extracting the system components from the business specifications， and then establishing a database needed for data collection in actual law operation， and making modeling and algorithmic transformation of the elements， including indicators， directories， projects and other elements， have become the basic requirements to ensure the standardization and efficiency of data collection and processing. Different from the natural system featuring quantifiable elements and linearized relation， legal space as a social system is basically characterized by the non-quantitative elements and non-linear operation. Although the sociology studies of Luhmann and others have pioneered new perspectives and ideas to solve the problem of normative space in context of complexity by using a systematic approach， they have not given clear suggestions from the perspective of methodology. In the construction of traditional legal system research models， Analytic Hierarchy Process is often adopted. The AHP method is a relatively simple and flexible mathematical modeling method for multi-criteria decision-making. In this method， the problem is divided into different layers and the general objective is divided into different levels， so that the complex problem can be simplified. Then the influence of each layer or item on the general objective can be calculated by modeling method. Through the qualitative setting of evaluation indexes， the number of evaluation indexes can be reduced， and the information contained in the original indexes can be lost as little as possible. Thus， through the application of this method， the complexity and non-linear relationship between the systems are reduced to a simple and linear modelable system， which effectively improves the ability and needs of the standardized system to adapt to the operating environment. However， in the field of data space， the complexity of system elements and the diversity of system object characteristics have a huge impact on the research of this subject. Complexity and system emphasize that simple elements cannot be directly added together to become a whole with complex functions. It is necessary to simulate complex phenomena directly based on the microscopic mechanism of the complex system， through the selection and setting of meta-rules and the design of algorithms and evolutionary rules. This bottom-up calculation model embodies a systematic and holistic way of thinking. It can directly simulate complex phenomena by designing local evolution rules based on the microscopic mechanism of complex systems.

At the data space level， the application of digital model method changes the passive acceptance of participants， which leads to the new form and mode of legal research. In the process of spatial organization and operation， two different structures are connected， one being normative interpretation， the other being the occurrence of evidence. By determining the discovery of evidence and the application of evidence rules， the reality is constructed according to its own principles， which gives birth to two directions of legal space： the normative space based on rules and the evidence space based on operation. The construction of legal normative space realizes the construction of social reality for the construction of legal reality. The information elements of communication change with the expressive relationship between systems， and the mutual interference and relationship between systems make the system and environment form a connecting path. In the process of constructing legal normative space， the legislative organizations propose the general behavioral standard， and the judicial organizations make abstract rules concrete， and then the more specific and compulsory administrative organizations model the reality in law. The legal rules establish legal reality in fact. These all occur in the process of self-adjustment of the legal system. The uncertainty of legal terms makes itself contradictory to the transformation of the social stable environment and the coordination of conflicts. The way and medium of the connection between the normative closure and cognitive opening of legal space is evidence space， the result of social internal layers， and each subsystem is connected through structural coupling. Information and interference are mechanisms to ensure that the two operating closed systems remain open to cognition. With the information production mode of external environment adjusting its own operation direction and internal mode， this structure coupling enables the space coupling between the two， and further realizes the construction of supervision space in this negative feedback operating mechanism[10]. Through the operation of the above-mentioned process， the legal rules cover all the basic norms of social life in the real world as much as possible， and through a series of regularized and programmatic controls， the society reaches an ideal degree of order. Through the guidance of precise rules， the public can understand and control the possible evaluations of their actions， help themselves to minimize the various costs due to uncertainty， and human interactions are in an orderly manner.

4 Research Methods of Legal Spatiality

Systematic analysis method and system research method is a scientific holistic research method based on system theory， information theory and cybernetics. To process and reform a traditional theory by the method of systematic law， it is necessary to find a feasible basis or interface for the combination of system science and the research object. For a social system， the performance of its mechanism generally depends on three factors， namely， the effectiveness of the various elements within the system， the coordination of the various elements within the system， and the mutual influence between the system and the environment. The issues worth considering are how to realize the abstraction and theorization of system elements， internal structure， realization functions and other issues， and how to carry out in-depth research on the entry point and interface point of the social system activity modeling， and then build an operating model that conforms to the rules and characteristics of the system's operation， and integrate the corresponding model in the investigation of the basic characteristics of the external environment， such as integrity， synergy， and relevance. As to the model analysis method， the computerized realization path of various tasks in the information age is the processes of transaction model， conceptual abstract model， rational abstract model and mathematical model. The systematic scientific method provides an intermediate transition model for the use of computers and mathematics in legal research. The system's adjustment of social relations and the system regulation are more reasonable and timely， and must undergo the transformation from social behavior parameters to mathematical models and then to computer simulations. As well， between the mathematical object and the real object， there must be an intermediate link， which is the systematic pattern constituted by the system method， used to mathematically model the given object. The systematization of social sciences is a bridge to the digitization of social sciences and the only way to further advance social sciences to computerization.

The autopoietic （adaptive） characteristics presented by the legal space can achieve systemic harmony with the external space based on the precise operation of its own model operating mechanism， thereby achieving the important mission of "adjusting others through self-adjustment". This involves the construction of a transformation mechanism in multiple spaces， that is， establishing a transformation mechanism between the possibility space of legal normative behavior （normative space） and the possibility space of real behavior （realistic space）. Although the theory of "normative space" in the study of legal systems originated in the historical process of the development of modern system thought， it is the Marxist systematic view that has an important guiding significance for the formation and development of "normative space" theory. The basic principle of Marxism believes that both nature and society "can rely on the facts provided by empirical natural science itself to draw a clear picture of natural connections in a nearly systematic form." In the field of legal philosophy research， law and jurisprudence are analyzed and used as two levels of concepts. The goal of legal research is to explore the dialectical unity of "true" law and "formal" law. Although the legal norm system is in a perfect form of operation and the content of social relations as its material carrier is concretized and systematized， the abstract rule system must return to the real society， restrain and promote the order of human society to transform from spontaneous formation to conscious formation through practical activities， eliminating the ambiguity and uncertainty of people's spontaneous behavior norms. Only when the formal "normative space" finally returns to the true normative value can the unity of content and form be finally achieved.

5 Conclusion

Just as Kaufman emphasized that law involves value judgment， it can never be as accurate as mathematics， which completely negates the theoretical feasibility of quantitative analysis of legal norm system. He believes that "there has never been and will never be an accurate understanding of law and the computability of law. It will always be a utopia. Therefore， there is no closed 'axiomatic'legal system， but only an open 'collective argument' legal system." Trying to make law as a whole an axiomatic system in a strict sense， and realizing it through the formula of calculus， the assumption of the rule of interpreting facts is a wrong path against the substantive rationality of law itself. The construction of legal space is to connect certain legal knowledge to form a conceptual framework by establishing the dynamic relationship among legal concepts， legal facts and evidence. After defining the data model， relevant knowledge points are extracted from a large number of real legal relationships as entities， so as to establish the relationship between entities and elements， and form a highly logical knowledge system. The legal concept is analyzed as a knowledge structure that can be understood by the machine， and the relationship between knowledge and concept is established， so that the machine can understand the information. The path of information construction with data as the core is the important value of legal big data. Through computer algorithms， we can enhance the ability of data analysis and processing through the association and aggregation of a large number of data， which gives the traditional empirical research a pioneering possibility.

Based on the above analysis， the powerful force of omni-directional permeability give the development of information and communication technology distinctive characteristics and status of the times. The two-dimensional analysis paradigm based on information and data makes it a major theoretical change in the sense of hermeneutics. It provides a richer conceptual experience for understanding the world， as well as more novel and unique methods and models， and transforms the concept of traditional meaning into a gestalt， giving it new perspectives and observation dimensions. Information philosophy believes that rules are generated from the partial effects of simple processing elements， and the role of coding is to realize the efficiency and function of information processing through differentiation and synthesis. The information extraction of things then enhances people's ability to control and manage the external world. When the complexity and ambiguity of information require effective targeted structural processing， the use of coding methods will be required[11].Information is extracted from people's cognitive worlds and symbolized， and then independent information space is constructed through storage， combination and processing. By effectively reducing the amount of information required for coding by the cognitive system， a new structure or a more complex structure is established without requiring a detailed description of the structure from the perspective of elements. This spatial thinking emphasizes thinking based on the level and context of the legal system， and the system provides guidance for us to think about legal issues. However， spatial systematic thinking is also prone to extremes， emphasizing a legal system without contradictions and logically self-consistent， and deeming that all legal issues can be solved without considering factors such as legal purposes outside the system. Such a system achieves "perfection" and self-consistence at the cost of self-enclosure， ignoring issues such as norm conflicts， and avoiding value judgment attributes. The hierarchical relationship between concepts and the framework of legal principles can provide the necessary context for the application of law. However， it is easy for people to use mathematical rational methods to push systematic thinking to the extreme， thinking that after constructing a legal axiom system， they can follow that lead and find the required legal norms in the system smoothly. However， from the perspective of legal operating mechanisms， to include facts in legal norms is to test whether facts meet the factual composition of legal norms and therefore produce legal consequences stipulated by norms.

References：

[1] Niklas Luhmann. Law as a Social System[M].Oxford University Press， 2004： 147.

[2] Gunther Teubner. Law as on Autopoietic System[M]. Blackwell Publishers， 1993： 92.

[3] Michael King &Chris Thornhill. Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Politics and Law[M]. Palgrave Macmillan， 2003： 143.

[4] Max H. Boisot.Information Space—a Framework for Learning in Organizations， Institutions and Culture[M].Routledge，1995： 67.

[5] Sabine Müller-Mall. Legal Spaces： towards a Topological Thinking of Law[M]. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg，2013： 203.

[6] Tommaso Natoli & Alice Riccardi. Borders， Legal Spaces and Territories in Contemporary International Law[M]. Springer， 2019： 76.

[7] Lawrence Lessig.Translated by Li Xu and ShenWeiwei. Code Version2.0-and Other Laws of Cyberspace[M]. Tsinghua University Press， 2018： 159.

[8] Jennifer Oldfield， Peter van Oosterom， Jakob Beetz， Thomas Krijnen. Working with Open BIM Standards to Source Legal Spaces for a 3D Cadastre[J]. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-InformationVolume 6， 2017（1）： 38.

[9] Tuan Y F. Space and Place： the Perspectives of Experience[M].Minneapolis： University of Minnesota Press， 2001： 194.

[10] Delaney D. The Spatial，the Legal and the Pragmatics of Place-making： Nomospheric Investigations[M]. Routledge，2010： 157.

[11] Delaney， David. The Spatial， the Legal， and the Pragmatics of World-Making：Nomospheric Investigations[M]. London：Glass House Books， 2010： 183.

法律空間建構(gòu)的邏輯演進(jìn)

田? 菊

（天津師范大學(xué)? 外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院，天津 300387）

摘? ? 要：近年來(lái)，學(xué)術(shù)界越來(lái)越多的學(xué)科正在向空間理論研究轉(zhuǎn)向。法律的空間性研究也具有一定學(xué)術(shù)和應(yīng)用價(jià)值。本文以于法律空間性為研究視角，從三個(gè)不同的維度進(jìn)行邏輯推演：維度構(gòu)成、作用機(jī)制和研究方法。本研究的目的是探索利用抽象的數(shù)學(xué)模型來(lái)建構(gòu)一個(gè)法律空間的可能性，特別是在信息技術(shù)高速發(fā)展的背景下，借鑒盧曼開創(chuàng)的系統(tǒng)法學(xué)方法論，以解釋、建構(gòu)和規(guī)范這一機(jī)制，豐富了法律的理論研究，為法律研究提供了抽象、整體和系統(tǒng)研究的新視域。

關(guān)鍵詞：法律空間;數(shù)據(jù)空間;數(shù)學(xué)建模