Having an idea about what CANSs are and about what CANS theory aims for, we have to discuss what knowledge of them will be attractive to legal scholarship and the legal profession. Considering that CANS theory aims to improve comprehension of situations that are complex, and that CANS theory supports cross-disciplinary cooperation, we may expect the CANS-theory toolbox to be of value when facing Complex Problems. Many of these (globalization, failing states, overpopulation, urbanization, credit crunches, pandemics, global heating, deepening economic/educational/religious/political divides) not only share the characteristics of CANSs, they also radiate desperate appeals for legal/legitimate help and `solutions,’ almost continuously. The same goes for Complex ICT problems, like: legitimate policing, personal data protection, social media, effective command and control (for users and service providers) of social media, internet services, the cloud, and the procurement and production of effective ICT services of scale. As these problems all (Complex Problems and Complex ICT Problems alike) show (1) the characteristics of CANSs, (2) prove very difficult to manage/solve as they are either (3) resilient to pressures or (4) in the process of critical transformation, CANS theories are expected to apply. Moreover, the imaginable solutions to these Complex Problems all transcend the scope of a single specialist’s knowledge. Consequently, their consideration needs the cooperation of a diversity of disciplines. Thus, CANS theories are on topic also from this perspective.
One example of interest to legal scholarship and legal practice alike is in our analysis of the Complex Fukushima Situation (to be discussed elsewhere in this blog).