Can Quantitative Methods Complement Doctrinal Legal Studies? Using Citation Network and Corpus Linguistic Analysis to Understand International Courts

Author:

ŠADL URŠKA,OLSEN HENRIK PALMER

Abstract

AbstractA recent editorial in this journal stressed the need to rearticulate the methodology – and thereby the distinctiveness – of international law in the context of blurring disciplinary lines between international law and international relations. The aim of this article is to contribute to the methodological aspect of the debate. First, the article outlines a legal empirical approach, which complements legal methodology of international law with empirical tools and techniques such as citation network analysis and corpus linguistics. Second, the article applies the approach on the case law of two European courts: the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It demonstrates how the study of case citations and the language of courts enhance the validity, reliability, and transparency of the established legal method. In particular, scholars of international law gain a stable and complete quantitative basis for a further in-depth study of case law, precedent and interpretation. Additional benefit stems from a set of transparent criteria by which to criticize the jurisprudence of international courts. Firmer ground emerges from which to evaluate the courts’ role in the political process, their societal impact and their legitimacy. At the same time the approach preserves the main features of the distinct legal methodology of international law – especially its attention to legal detail.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Law,Political Science and International Relations

Reference33 articles.

1. The Citation and Depreciation of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent

2. Quantitative Legal Prediction – or – How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Start Preparing for the Data Driven Future of the Legal Services Industry;Katz;Emory Law Journal,2013

3. Putting a Leash on the Court of Justice? Preconceptions in National Methodology v Effet Utile as a Meta-Rule;Mayr;European Journal of Legal Studies,2012/13

4. Effectiveness in the European Legal Order(s): Beyond Supremacy to Constitutional Proportionality?;Ross;E.L. Rev.,2006

Cited by 58 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Research Design;Compliance with European Consumer Law;2024-08-22

2. Mandatory Disclosures and Substantive Consumer Rights;Compliance with European Consumer Law;2024-08-22

3. Controlling Unfair Contract Terms;Compliance with European Consumer Law;2024-08-22

4. Evidence-based Consumer Law and Policy;Compliance with European Consumer Law;2024-08-22

5. Introduction;Compliance with European Consumer Law;2024-08-22

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3