ABSTRACT
The aim of this chapter is to stress some significant and important gaps that can be noticed in analyses at the intersection of two different kinds of scientific inquiry that are devoted in the end to one problem, and propose a hypothetical way of addressing this particular gap. On the one hand, science and technology studies (STS) (especially, actor-network theory – ANT)1 and also philosophy of technology2 – all investigating, among other things, interactions between humans and human-made non-humans (objects, things, pieces of
technology) – seem to give significant attention to various artifacts that simultaneously in a specific way may remind people of certain legally relevant actions required of them (prescriptions or proscriptions) and force them to actually engage in those actions. Their most basic but still important and thought-provoking examples are speed bumps,3 anti-homeless benches,4 devices forcing us to fasten seat belts,5 or breathalyzers coupled with ignition systems.6 On the other hand, even though broadly understood legal scholars seemed to be for a very long time quite oblivious to these artifacts and their legal or socio-legal relevance, the situation has changed. Many legal scholars became aware of the significance – from a purely legal perspective, like protection of basic rights and freedoms (e.g., dignity or privacy) or legal values (e.g., legal certainty) – of technologies used in order to enforce some rules described primarily in texts of the legal acts.7 In the face of this, one might say that one particular issue – various technological artifacts making people act in accordance with the law – is the subject of interest of at least two different disciplines. Of course, this multidisciplinary interest in one subject can be assessed in a positive manner. However, it seems that most of the discussion in question can be regarded as quite one-sided.
