Quantum Decision Making, Legal Complexity and Social Behavior

  • Noemi L. Olivera
  • Araceli N. Proto
  • Claudia M. Sarris
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 305)


The relationship between Law (legal system) and Society can be and has been described in many different ways. Beyond the theoretical discussions, there lays reality, and it shows that decisions on legal policies are not neutral in terms of social impact. The legal system is composed by many instruments, institutes or institutions interacting among themselves—laws and other legal norms, including articles within them. It is clear that instruments, institutes or institutions, augment their number according to the appearance of new forms of relationship. Then, the Law is progressively composed by more and more instruments and there is no reason to expect them to be always working in a synchronized way. For this reason Law can be analyzed using complex systems tools, the ‘Legal Complexity Notion’. Moreover, the idea of law is closely related to those of obedience and enforceability. However, a law is not only obeyed just because it is enforceable, but it is considered to express society’s attitude toward a given situation. In other words, people are not likely to perform the behavior described in the law just because it is there. Leaving aside the area of compulsory rules—such as penal law-, where individuals cannot neglect the existence of such a norm, in the vast area of non-compulsory norms—such as contract law-, there are many laws in most legal systems that rule situations that are seldom chosen by the parties of a given business. In the present contribution; we analyze why individuals opt for some legal instruments which are not of compulsory application or do not choose them. One case is the kind of joint venture agreements—contract entailment among enterprises—businessmen decide to enter. Using the available data and a quantum decision-making model, we are able to describe, for the Argentinean case, why among the available typical joint venture regimes, the Temporary Union of Firms—UTE—is preferred by users rather than the Group of Collaborating Firms—ACE—or the Consortium of Cooperating Firms—CCE.


Legal Complexity Business Decision making Nonlinear Spin Model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Zaldívar, E., Manovil, R., Ragazzi, G.: Contratos de Colaboración Empresaria, 2nd edn., Abeledo-Perrot, Buenos Aires, Argentina (1993) (updated)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fundamentos. Proyecto de Código Civil y Comercial de la Nación. Mensaje del Poder Ejectutivo Nacional N ° 884/2012, Infojus, Sistema Argentino de Información Jurídica. Contratos asociativos, Argentina, pp. 659–662Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olivera, N.: Actuación mercantil de las PYMES en el MERCOSUR. En: Revista del Derecho Comercial y de las Obligaciones, Año 29, N o 169 a 174, Depalma, Buenos Aires, pp. 465–553 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olivera, N.: Alianzas estratégicas y mecanismos asociativos. II Foro Intermunicipal. Buenos Aires sin Fronteras. Conferencias, documentos y debates sobre Política, Economía e Integración, Edit. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina, pp. 69–72 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olivera, N., Sassano, M., Proto, A.: La contratación entre las pymes del MERCOSUR, X Encuentro Internacional de Derecho de Amé rica del Sur -EIDAS 2001-, Direito da Integraçao e Relaçóes Internacionais. Fundaçáo Boiteux Editora, Florianópolis, Brasil, pp. 534–540 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Olivera, N., Proto, A.: Information Society: The Problem of Law in Terms of the ‘Legal Complexity’ Notion. In: Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference e-Society 2009, Barcelona, vol. II, pp. 3–7 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sarris, C.M., Proto, A.N.: IJBC 19, 3473–3484 (2009) and references therein Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alhassid, Y., Levine, R.D.: J. Chem. Phys. 67, 4321 (1977), Phys. Rev. A 18, 89 (1978)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ballentine, L.E.: Phys. Rev. E 63, 056204 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sarris, C.M., Caram, F., Proto, A.N.: Phys. Lett. A 324, 1–8 (2004)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jaynes, E.T.: Phys. Rev. 106, 620 (1957)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katz, A.: Principles of Statistical Mechanics, the Information Theory Approach. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco (1967)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sarris, C.M., Proto, A.N.: Dissipative SU(2) Semiquantum Non-linear Hamiltonian for Decision Making. Advances and Applications in Statistical Sciences 6(6), 314–355 (2011)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldstein, H.: Classical Mechanics. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1950)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dirección Provincial de Personas Jurídicas Buenos Aires Province, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B., Laloë, F.: Quantum Mechanics, vol. I. John Wiley & Sons, NY (1977)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feynman, R., Leighton, R.B., Sand, M.: Mecánica Cuántica, vol. III: Mecánica Cuántica. Addison-Wesley Iberoamérica, USA (1971)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sarris, C.M., Proto, A.N.: Decision making under stress: a Quantum Model approach. Advances and Applications in Statistical Sciences 2(2), 359–373 (2010)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noemi L. Olivera
    • 1
  • Araceli N. Proto
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Claudia M. Sarris
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.GECSI-FCJS-UNLPBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Ciclo Basico Comun, Catedra de FisicaUniversidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.Laboratorio de Sistemas Complejos, Facultad de IngenieriaUniversidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.GIDyCSI-UNLABuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations