These companies helped us create our certification requirements and our Deceptor program. They rely on our App intelligence.
Our cybersecurity partnerships are built on shared values. And a shared, unwavering commitment to protecting consumers from cybercrime.
is a Slovenian legal scholar, author, and academic, currently serving as a Professor of Administrative Law and Public Administration at the University of Ljubljana’s Faculty of Public Administration and as a Visiting Professor at the University of Split’s Faculty of Law .
He is widely recognized for his interdisciplinary work that bridges law, public policy, systems theory, and cybernetics. Unlike traditional legal scholars who focus primarily on normative texts, Pečarič analyzes the functioning of legal systems as complex adaptive systems, drawing heavily on the work of Niklas Luhmann, Karl Popper, and Norbert Wiener. 1. The Concept of “Generative Legal Acts” Pečarič is best known for his theory of generative legal acts—legal norms or rules that do not prescribe specific outcomes but instead create “frameworks of possibility.” He argues that in rapidly changing technological and social environments (e.g., AI, climate regulation, digital markets), rigid, detailed rules become obsolete before they are implemented. Instead, law should generate adaptive, context-sensitive responses. This concept sits between traditional rule-based law and discretionary power. mirko pečarič
Pečarič views public administration not as a mere executor of legislative commands but as a cognitive and control system. He analyzes phenomena like regulatory failure, bureaucratic rigidity, and “legal inflation” (excessive normative production) through the lens of control theory: too many rules cause signal overload, while too few cause indeterminacy. is a Slovenian legal scholar, author, and academic,
In his work, Pečarič revives the idea of legal cybernetics (a field prominent in the 1960s–80s but later abandoned). He proposes that feedback loops, communication channels, and noise reduction are essential for legal systems to self-correct. He is critical of “open-loop” legislation—laws passed without mechanisms for monitoring their effects and adjusting accordingly. This concept sits between traditional rule-based law and