意大利宪法法院的判例法、权力法和学术意见网

T. Agnoloni, U. Pagallo
{"title":"意大利宪法法院的判例法、权力法和学术意见网","authors":"T. Agnoloni, U. Pagallo","doi":"10.1145/2746090.2746108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper examines the citation network of the via incidentale rulings of the Italian Constitutional Court (\"ICC\"), vis-à-vis the web of scholarly opinions, comments, and annotations, devoted to such cases. The aim is to deepen the notion of legal relevance. On the one hand, a remarkable number of cases that are considerably discussed by experts, are neither hubs nor authorities in the ICC citation network. On the other hand, cases that are relevant in the ICC citation network are scarcely debated, or even ignored, by scholars. This twofold outcome suggests that we should combine research on the citation network of the courts with the web of scholarly opinions, to obtain a more detailed picture of which decisions and verdicts have to be reckoned as relevant in a given legal system.","PeriodicalId":309125,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The case law of the Italian constitutional court, its power laws, and the web of scholarly opinions\",\"authors\":\"T. Agnoloni, U. Pagallo\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2746090.2746108\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper examines the citation network of the via incidentale rulings of the Italian Constitutional Court (\\\"ICC\\\"), vis-à-vis the web of scholarly opinions, comments, and annotations, devoted to such cases. The aim is to deepen the notion of legal relevance. On the one hand, a remarkable number of cases that are considerably discussed by experts, are neither hubs nor authorities in the ICC citation network. On the other hand, cases that are relevant in the ICC citation network are scarcely debated, or even ignored, by scholars. This twofold outcome suggests that we should combine research on the citation network of the courts with the web of scholarly opinions, to obtain a more detailed picture of which decisions and verdicts have to be reckoned as relevant in a given legal system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":309125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2746090.2746108\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2746090.2746108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

本文考察了意大利宪法法院(“ICC”)的偶然裁决的引文网络,参见-à-vis学术意见,评论和注释的网络,专门用于此类案件。其目的是加深法律相关性的概念。一方面,专家们讨论过的大量案例既不是国际商会引文网络的中心,也不是权威机构。另一方面,与国际商会引文网络相关的案例很少被学者讨论,甚至被忽视。这一双重结果表明,我们应该将对法院引用网络的研究与学术意见网络结合起来,以获得更详细的图景,即哪些决定和判决必须被视为与特定法律体系相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The case law of the Italian constitutional court, its power laws, and the web of scholarly opinions
The paper examines the citation network of the via incidentale rulings of the Italian Constitutional Court ("ICC"), vis-à-vis the web of scholarly opinions, comments, and annotations, devoted to such cases. The aim is to deepen the notion of legal relevance. On the one hand, a remarkable number of cases that are considerably discussed by experts, are neither hubs nor authorities in the ICC citation network. On the other hand, cases that are relevant in the ICC citation network are scarcely debated, or even ignored, by scholars. This twofold outcome suggests that we should combine research on the citation network of the courts with the web of scholarly opinions, to obtain a more detailed picture of which decisions and verdicts have to be reckoned as relevant in a given legal system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信