Legal Foresight

This is a primer on Legal Foresight.

Legal Foresight is the systematic anticipation of legal challenges through structured futures research. It represents a fundamental shift in how legal systems engage with time: from reacting to past events toward anticipating possible futures. The field emerged formally in 2012 but builds on five decades of intellectual foundations—most notably the work on technology governance dilemmas that revealed the structural mismatch between legal and technological temporalities.

Table of Contents

• The Problem: Why Law Cannot Keep Pace
• What is Legal Foresight?
• Three Strands of Legal Foresight
• Methods and Tools
• Legal Foresight and Future Imaginaries
• Blind Spots: Underexplored Perspectives
• Critical Perspectives
• Open Questions
• Sources

The Problem: Why Law Cannot Keep Pace

Legal systems are inherently retrospective. The doctrine of stare decisis—binding precedent—and the hermeneutic interpretation of codified norms create stability by using past cases as templates for present conflicts. This backward-looking orientation, which gives law its enormous societal stabilizing power, is under massive pressure in the 21st century.

The Collingridge Dilemma

The Collingridge Dilemma, articulated by David Collingridge in 1980, is the central paradox driving Legal Foresight.¹ It describes a double bind: early in a technology’s development, regulation is easy but information about consequences is lacking; later, consequences are clear but the technology is too entrenched for effective intervention. This temporal mismatch between technological and legal change makes anticipatory approaches essential.

The Pacing Problem

Larry Downes popularized the term “Pacing Problem” in 2009: “Technology changes exponentially, but social, economic, and legal systems change incrementally.”² The complexity of modern government systems—what Steven Teles calls “Kludgeocracy”—exacerbates this gap. Bureaucratic inefficiency and political polarization mean that laws are often passed only when the technology they address is already obsolete.

The gap is visible everywhere: autonomous vehicles operate in regulatory gray zones, AI systems make consequential decisions without clear liability frameworks, and gene editing capabilities outpace bioethics consensus by years.

What is Legal Foresight?

Legal Foresight is the systematic identification, exploration, and evaluation of possible, probable, and desirable future developments in law—and the interactions between law, technology, and society.³ It does not aim to precisely predict the future (an undertaking doomed to failure given modern complexity) but to prepare for a range of different futures. The lawyer shifts from reactive “firefighter” to proactive “architect”—a role requiring futures literacy, systems thinking, and risk management alongside legal expertise.

Formal Articulation: Laurie, Harmon & Arzuaga (2012)

The academic foundation was laid by Graeme Laurie, Shawn Harmon, and Fabiana Arzuaga in their 2012 paper “Foresighting Futures: Law, New Technologies, and the Challenges of Regulating for Uncertainty.”³ The Edinburgh team argued that legal foresight “is eminently justified and needs to be expanded, improved, and massively scaled up.”

Their Legal Foresighting Master Matrix provides a structured methodology with three dimensions:

1. Challenging Assumptions: Breaking entrenched argumentation patterns like “progress vs. preservation” or “wow vs. yuck” reactions to new technologies.

2. Evidence & Tolerances: Establishing who participates in foresight, what risk levels society accepts, and what constitutes the subject of regulation.

3. Role of Law: Evaluating whether law should promote or restrict—recognizing law as enabler, not just constraint.

Situating Legal Foresight

Legal Foresight operates as a specialized application within Anticipatory Governance—the broader systems-based approach where governments integrate foresight, feedback, and networked coordination to shape multiple possible futures. While Anticipatory Governance encompasses policy, budgetary, and innovation foresight across government functions, Legal Foresight focuses specifically on law-making, adjudication, and regulatory design. It contributes anticipatory intelligence about legal norms and instruments to the wider governance cycle.

Distinguishing Related Concepts

A critical distinction: Predictive Justice uses algorithms to calculate probabilities for court rulings based on historical data—it is deterministic and past-fixated. Legal Foresight is possibilistic and future-open. It asks not “How will this be decided?” but “How should we decide if conditions change?” Predictive Justice cements the status quo; Legal Foresight attempts to shape it.

Three Strands of Legal Foresight

Legal Foresight manifests in three distinct but interconnected strands, each with different actors, methods, and goals.

Regulatory: State Institutions

Governments increasingly integrate foresight into policy-making:

• European Union: Strategic Foresight became a political priority in 2019, integrated into the Better Regulation Toolbox in 2021. The Joint Research Centre provides methods and training, and annual Strategic Foresight Reports inform political priorities.

• Finland: The Committee for the Future (founded 1993) was the world’s first parliamentary futures committee with a permanent mandate, responding to government future reports and conducting technology assessment.

• Singapore: The Centre for Strategic Futures (since 2015) uses AI-enhanced platforms for cross-agency foresight collaboration. Its Model AI Governance Framework demonstrates “soft law” as a foresight instrument—creating regulatory certainty before hard laws exist.

• OECD: The 2024 “Framework for Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies” provides a structured approach with five elements: values integration, foresight capacity, stakeholder engagement, agile regulation, and international cooperation.⁴

Strategic: Law Firms and Legal Departments

In business contexts, Legal Foresight becomes strategic advantage:

• ESG and Climate: Law firms scan geopolitical conflicts, climate data, and migration flows alongside legislation. The German Supply Chain Act was signaled for years through “weak signals”—firms with foresight competence prepared clients before the first draft appeared.

• Long-term Investments: For infrastructure projects spanning 30+ years, scenarios explore whether contracts hold in a world with 3°C warming and €200 carbon prices.

• Institutional Example: The Liquid Legal Institute launched its Strategic Legal Foresight Office in 2025, offering trend monitoring, scenario labs, and structured foresight methods specifically for the legal sector.⁵

Transformative: Civil Society and Participatory Approaches

The most innovative—and often overlooked—strand involves citizens as co-creators of legal futures:

• Legislative Theatre: Augusto Boal, as a Rio de Janeiro city councilor, used theatre to draft laws. Citizens enacted scenes of oppression; audiences (“spect-actors”) stopped scenes to propose solutions; lawyers translated these into legal language ad hoc. This method led to 13 laws being passed in Rio—a form of “bottom-up Legal Foresight.”⁶

• Speculative Design: Projects like Superflux’s “Mitigation of Shock” simulate future living conditions (a London apartment in 2050 with fogponics and insect protein), making abstract legal gaps physically experienceable. Who owns the water in the air? Is private cultivation of genetically modified plants legal?⁷

• Legal Design Fiction: Artist Lawrence Lek explores fictional court processes (an autonomous car on trial), playing through what a legal system might look like that treats AI rather than humans as primary legal subjects.

Methods and Tools

Legal Foresight draws on an eclectic methodological toolkit adapted from Futures Studies.

Horizon Scanning

The systematic collection of signals about regulatory developments, court decisions, enforcement trends, and weak signals of societal change. The UK Government Office for Science Futures Toolkit (2024) structures this via STEEPLE categories (Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, Political, Legal, Ethical).

Scenario Planning

The central method. The classic 2×2 matrix identifies two critical uncertainties and develops four contrasting futures. Good scenarios are intentionally “uncomfortable”—they diverge from business-as-usual to stress-test assumptions.

Example: HiiL’s “Law Scenarios to 2030” function as “wind tunnels” where justice ministries and NGOs test strategies against hypothetical futures, making laws “future-robust.”⁸

Regulatory Sandboxes

Controlled environments for regulatory experimentation. The UK Financial Conduct Authority launched the first fintech sandbox in 2016; today over 60 data/AI/tech sandboxes exist globally.

For the legal sector, the Utah Office of Legal Services Innovation (2020) pioneered the first legal regulatory sandbox in the USA, with over 56 participating entities testing new legal service models.⁹

Three Horizons Framework

The Three Horizons model maps transformation over time: Horizon 1 represents the dominant present system (often declining in fit), Horizon 3 envisions emergent future systems, and Horizon 2 identifies disruptive innovations that bridge the transition. For legal systems, this means mapping current regulatory frameworks (H1), imagining future legal architectures (H3), and identifying experimental approaches like sandboxes or soft law that enable the transition (H2).

HiiL applied this in fragile contexts like Somalia, where formal legal institutions had collapsed. The method helped stakeholders visualize how informal dispute resolution (H1) might evolve toward integrated justice systems (H3) through hybrid mechanisms (H2).

AI-Enhanced Tools

Platforms like CUBE, 4CRisk HorizonScan, and FinregE use machine learning to track regulatory changes across hundreds of sources in real-time, automating horizon scanning.

Legal Foresight and Future Imaginaries

The scenarios developed through Legal Foresight do not remain neutral instruments. When widely adopted, they can consolidate into Future Imaginaries—collective expectations of the future that become so self-evident they influence behavior largely unconsciously. A scenario imagining “AI judges” or “algorithmic liability,” repeated across policy papers, conferences, and strategic planning, gradually shifts from speculative possibility to assumed trajectory.

This raises a critical question: Who shapes the future imaginaries of law? If Legal Foresight is dominated by Western institutions, corporate law firms, and technocratic experts, the futures deemed “plausible” will reflect their assumptions and interests. Alternative legal futures—indigenous, post-colonial, communitarian—may never enter the scenario space at all.

The coordinating function of future imaginaries is double-edged for legal systems: shared expectations enable collective action toward regulatory goals, but they can also foreclose alternative paths before they are seriously considered. Legal Foresight practitioners must therefore ask not only “What futures are possible?” but “Whose futures are we imagining—and whose are we excluding?”

Blind Spots: Underexplored Perspectives

The dominant Legal Foresight literature—primarily Western, academic, and technocratic—systematically overlooks perspectives that could fundamentally expand the field.

Indigenous Legal Traditions

Indigenous knowledge systems offer radically alternative temporality concepts:

• Seventh Generation Stewardship: The Haudenosaunee Confederacy principle requires evaluating every decision for its impact on the seventh following generation—a time horizon of approximately 150 years. Land is understood as “borrowed from future generations,” not owned.¹⁰

• Cyclical Temporality: Anishinaabe tradition views the earth as alive and unownable. These approaches integrate past, present, and future rather than separating them linearly—a fundamental contrast to Western foresight logic.

• Rights of Nature: The legal personhood of natural entities (rivers in New Zealand, ecosystems in Ecuador) anticipates that human survival depends on ecosystem integrity, giving the future—represented by nature—a voice in the courtroom.

The Maastricht Principles on Human Rights of Future Generations (2023) explicitly recognize indigenous knowledge systems and demand “correction of past and present injustices as part of intergenerational justice.”¹¹

Global South Perspectives

Technology governance debates are “framed as discussions between great powers” while developing countries are disadvantaged in multiple competing decision-making spaces:

• Havana Declaration (2023): G77+China opposes “technological monopolies” and demands an “open, just, inclusive, and non-discriminatory environment for science and technology development.”

• India’s “Techno-Legal” Approach: Embedding regulation directly into code shows alternative implementation logics.

• TWAIL (Third World Approaches to International Law) challenges the universalist assumptions of Western legal foresight frameworks.

Afrofuturism and Law

Scholars like I. Bennett Capers bring Afrofuturist perspectives to legal imagination, arguing that algorithmic predictions and scenarios often rely on racist data from the past. Afrofuturism reframes foresight as emancipation rather than risk management—imagining radically new, liberated legal spaces rather than extrapolating existing injustices into the future.¹²

Critical Perspectives

Despite its evident utility, Legal Foresight is not uncontroversial. It touches the foundations of rule-of-law understanding.

The Technocracy Problem

Alfred Nordmann’s critique of “speculative ethics” is particularly influential: Anticipatory Governance reifies uncertain futures by making hypothetical scenarios into objects that claim scarce ethical resources. It diminishes present attention in favor of imagined futures and creates illusions of control. Nordmann’s radical conclusion: anticipation is “not necessary” for anticipatory governance.¹³

Proponents like David Guston counter that this assumes a narrow “predictivist” conception—Legal Foresight aims at adaptive capacity, not accurate prediction.

The Democracy Deficit

Who decides which future scenarios count as “plausible” and thus become the basis for laws? Often small circles of experts and technocrats. The public is excluded, creating legitimation deficits.

The “limited imagination of the jurist” can constrain legal options. Participatory foresight tends to privilege those with resources to participate. Accountability gaps emerge when foresight-informed policy causes harm—who is liable for false anticipation?

The Sandbox Paradox

Regulatory sandboxes grant selected firms advantages while disadvantaging competitors. The “riskwashing” critique argues that sandboxes, rather than containing fintech, amplify its socially disruptive potential while disguising risk trivialization as risk management.

Performativity and the Collingridge Paradox

Does Legal Foresight create the futures it anticipates? The scenarios we develop shape the futures we prepare for—and potentially produce. This performative dimension—what Jens Beckert calls fictional expectations becoming “self-fulfilling prophecies”—raises fundamental questions about causality in law-making.

Intriguingly, performativity loops back to the Collingridge Dilemma: if foresight shapes technological development, then early regulatory intervention based on scenarios might alter the very trajectory being anticipated. The dilemma’s information problem partially dissolves—but a new problem emerges: accountability for futures that never materialized because of foresight-informed intervention. How do we evaluate success when the counterfactual is unknowable?

Open Questions

The field raises fundamental questions that remain unanswered:

Methodological: How can foresight that includes “potentially affected parties” be conducted without being captured by organized interests? What standards should govern scenario selection and development?

Democratic: How can Legal Foresight be held accountable when its predictions prove wrong? What role should non-experts play in imagining legal futures?

Globally Just: How can foresight frameworks integrate Global South priorities and knowledge systems? What would a “decolonized” Legal Foresight methodology look like?

Temporally Just: What legal mechanisms can represent the interests of future generations? How can indigenous temporality concepts be integrated into legal frameworks?

The Collingridge Dilemma that stood at the beginning of the intellectual development remains unsolved—but Legal Foresight at least offers a framework to productively work through this dilemma rather than ignore it. The decisive question is whether the field can resist its technocratic impulses and become a genuine space for plural future imaginations.

Sources

Foundational Texts

Institutional Resources

Alternative Perspectives

Further Reading

Priority 1: Foundations

• Bennett Moses, L. (2007). “Recurring Dilemmas: The Law’s Race to Keep Up with Technological Change.” University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy.
• Marchetti, G., Allenby, B., & Herkert, J. (2011). The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight. Springer.

Priority 2: Methods

• UK Government Office for Science (2024). Futures Toolkit.
• Inayatullah, S. (1998). “Causal Layered Analysis.” Futures, 30(8).

Priority 3: Critical Perspectives

• Guston, D. (2014). “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’.” Social Studies of Science, 44(2).
• Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage.

This primer represents a synthesis of current academic understanding and emerging practice in Legal Foresight.

Document Length: ~3,200 words Created: 2025-12-03 Based on: Comprehensive research including Laurie et al. (2012), Liquid Legal Institute documentation, and critical futures studies perspectives.