Network Analysis and Legal Scholarship

In their contribution in this issue Mattias Derlén and Johan Lindholm use social network analysis to show that the European Court of Justice is a precedent-driven constitutional court that is comparable to the US Supreme Court with regard to the citation of precedents. The article and its use of net...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:German law journal Vol. 18; no. 3; pp. 695 - 700
Main Authors: Petersen, Niels, Towfigh, Emanuel V.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Toronto Cambridge University Press 01.05.2017
Subjects:
Analysis
Comparative law
Constitutional courts
Federal court decisions
International courts
Law
Precedents
Social justice
Social network analysis
Supreme courts
ISSN:2071-8322, 2071-8322
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In their contribution in this issue Mattias Derlén and Johan Lindholm use social network analysis to show that the European Court of Justice is a precedent-driven constitutional court that is comparable to the US Supreme Court with regard to the citation of precedents. The article and its use of network analysis as a method provoked a lively debate on the editorial board of the German Law Journal about comparative law theory and methods generally and the place of empirical (including network) analyses in the comparative law discipline. For this reason, the editorial board commissioned this “special section” of contributions dedicated broadly to approaches to comparative law. In his essay in this section, for example, Jens Frankenreiter offers a detailed assessment of Derlén's and Lindholm's analysis. In this piece, we take a broader perspective and look at the utility and the limits of network analysis for legal scholarship generally.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:2071-8322
2071-8322
DOI:10.1017/S2071832200022124