date: 2023-03-01T13:29:28Z
pdf:PDFVersion: 1.6
pdf:docinfo:title: Challenges in the Interdisciplinary Use of Comparative Law?
xmp:CreatorTool: Adobe InDesign 15.1 (Windows)
access_permission:can_print_degraded: true
subject: doi: 10.1093/ajcl/avab020
The American Journal of Comparative Law, 21 July 2022
Abstract:
The world has more than 200 states. Many states are federations and hence consist of multiple jurisdictions. Seemingly there is thus ample room for a social science approach to comparative law. In this perspective, each legal order produces a data point. Variance in the solutions adopted by different legal orders is used as evidence that a certain legal design causes greater justice, better political stability, higher welfare, or more equity. The results could motivate the strife for legal betterment, by the way of legal transplants.
This Article cautions against the dangers inherent in this empirical enterprise. In a nutshell, the danger results from the fact that mere correlation (some jurisdictions are associated with some outcomes) is not causation (a difference in legal design is responsible for the difference in outcomes). Yet for choosing between alternative legal regimes, causation would be critical. The Article explains why comparative law is a conspicuously challenging source of empirical evidence. It discusses possible solutions.
pdfa:PDFVersion: A-3a
xmpMM:History:Action: converted
language: en-US
dc:format: application/pdf; version=1.6
pdf:docinfo:creator_tool: Adobe InDesign 15.1 (Windows)
access_permission:fill_in_form: true
xmpMM:History:When: 2022-07-21T15:37:20Z
pdf:encrypted: false
dc:title: Challenges in the Interdisciplinary Use of Comparative Law?
modified: 2023-03-01T13:29:28Z
cp:subject: doi: 10.1093/ajcl/avab020
The American Journal of Comparative Law, 21 July 2022
Abstract:
The world has more than 200 states. Many states are federations and hence consist of multiple jurisdictions. Seemingly there is thus ample room for a social science approach to comparative law. In this perspective, each legal order produces a data point. Variance in the solutions adopted by different legal orders is used as evidence that a certain legal design causes greater justice, better political stability, higher welfare, or more equity. The results could motivate the strife for legal betterment, by the way of legal transplants.
This Article cautions against the dangers inherent in this empirical enterprise. In a nutshell, the danger results from the fact that mere correlation (some jurisdictions are associated with some outcomes) is not causation (a difference in legal design is responsible for the difference in outcomes). Yet for choosing between alternative legal regimes, causation would be critical. The Article explains why comparative law is a conspicuously challenging source of empirical evidence. It discusses possible solutions.
xmpMM:History:SoftwareAgent: Preflight
pdf:docinfo:subject: doi: 10.1093/ajcl/avab020
The American Journal of Comparative Law, 21 July 2022
Abstract:
The world has more than 200 states. Many states are federations and hence consist of multiple jurisdictions. Seemingly there is thus ample room for a social science approach to comparative law. In this perspective, each legal order produces a data point. Variance in the solutions adopted by different legal orders is used as evidence that a certain legal design causes greater justice, better political stability, higher welfare, or more equity. The results could motivate the strife for legal betterment, by the way of legal transplants.
This Article cautions against the dangers inherent in this empirical enterprise. In a nutshell, the danger results from the fact that mere correlation (some jurisdictions are associated with some outcomes) is not causation (a difference in legal design is responsible for the difference in outcomes). Yet for choosing between alternative legal regimes, causation would be critical. The Article explains why comparative law is a conspicuously challenging source of empirical evidence. It discusses possible solutions.
xmpMM:History:InstanceID: uuid:2e349262-e95e-4097-821c-21992d8a0ff2
pdf:docinfo:creator: CHRISTOPH ENGEL
meta:author: CHRISTOPH ENGEL
trapped: False
meta:creation-date: 2022-07-21T10:06:48Z
created: 2022-07-21T10:06:48Z
access_permission:extract_for_accessibility: true
Creation-Date: 2022-07-21T10:06:48Z
xmpMM:DerivedFrom:DocumentID: xmp.did:ad68746f-d14c-634b-be18-128834d0e445
pdfaid:part: 3
Author: CHRISTOPH ENGEL
producer: Adobe PDF Library 15.0; modified using iTextSharp 4.1.6 by 1T3XT
pdf:docinfo:producer: Adobe PDF Library 15.0; modified using iTextSharp 4.1.6 by 1T3XT
pdf:unmappedUnicodeCharsPerPage: 0
dc:description: doi: 10.1093/ajcl/avab020
The American Journal of Comparative Law, 21 July 2022
Abstract:
The world has more than 200 states. Many states are federations and hence consist of multiple jurisdictions. Seemingly there is thus ample room for a social science approach to comparative law. In this perspective, each legal order produces a data point. Variance in the solutions adopted by different legal orders is used as evidence that a certain legal design causes greater justice, better political stability, higher welfare, or more equity. The results could motivate the strife for legal betterment, by the way of legal transplants.
This Article cautions against the dangers inherent in this empirical enterprise. In a nutshell, the danger results from the fact that mere correlation (some jurisdictions are associated with some outcomes) is not causation (a difference in legal design is responsible for the difference in outcomes). Yet for choosing between alternative legal regimes, causation would be critical. The Article explains why comparative law is a conspicuously challenging source of empirical evidence. It discusses possible solutions.
access_permission:modify_annotations: true
dc:creator: CHRISTOPH ENGEL
description: doi: 10.1093/ajcl/avab020
The American Journal of Comparative Law, 21 July 2022
Abstract:
The world has more than 200 states. Many states are federations and hence consist of multiple jurisdictions. Seemingly there is thus ample room for a social science approach to comparative law. In this perspective, each legal order produces a data point. Variance in the solutions adopted by different legal orders is used as evidence that a certain legal design causes greater justice, better political stability, higher welfare, or more equity. The results could motivate the strife for legal betterment, by the way of legal transplants.
This Article cautions against the dangers inherent in this empirical enterprise. In a nutshell, the danger results from the fact that mere correlation (some jurisdictions are associated with some outcomes) is not causation (a difference in legal design is responsible for the difference in outcomes). Yet for choosing between alternative legal regimes, causation would be critical. The Article explains why comparative law is a conspicuously challenging source of empirical evidence. It discusses possible solutions.
dcterms:created: 2022-07-21T10:06:48Z
Last-Modified: 2023-03-01T13:29:28Z
dcterms:modified: 2023-03-01T13:29:28Z
title: Challenges in the Interdisciplinary Use of Comparative Law?
xmpMM:DocumentID: xmp.id:2ee2a568-ca1f-184b-a2a1-40c676648fad
Last-Save-Date: 2023-03-01T13:29:28Z
pdf:docinfo:modified: 2023-03-01T13:29:28Z
meta:save-date: 2023-03-01T13:29:28Z
Content-Type: application/pdf
X-Parsed-By: org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser
creator: CHRISTOPH ENGEL
pdfaid:conformance: A
dc:language: en-US
access_permission:assemble_document: true
xmpTPg:NPages: 21
pdf:charsPerPage: 2248
access_permission:extract_content: true
access_permission:can_print: true
pdf:docinfo:trapped: False
xmpMM:DerivedFrom:InstanceID: xmp.iid:8fbb68e0-2345-b643-b596-f45b8fc777b5
access_permission:can_modify: true
pdf:docinfo:created: 2022-07-21T10:06:48Z