Abstract

In the remote areas of legal scholarship, far away from the legal mainstream, the boundries of law are explored. These secret dimly lit societies fathom paradoxes in law. A paradox, so they say, is like God, an “indicable whole”. It “is an evanescent object, that is, a non-object oscillating between being (…) and not being”. One can hardly even talk about it: “Paradoxologists are people speaking about something that cannot be spoken about (so easily).” Rumour has it that spirits haunt this uncanny scenery: “The undecidable remains caught, lodged, at least as a ghost – but an essential ghost – in every decision, in every event of decision.” Needless to say, it is not particularly easy to decipher what these rumours may mean. To say the least, the combining of law with paradoxes has led to some rather obscure results.