宪法推理的透明度:匈牙利宪法法院判例的文本挖掘分析

Q3 Social Sciences
Miklós Sebők, Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz, Rebeka Kiss, István Járay
{"title":"宪法推理的透明度:匈牙利宪法法院判例的文本挖掘分析","authors":"Miklós Sebők, Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz, Rebeka Kiss, István Járay","doi":"10.17951/sil.2023.32.3.11-44","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The analysis of constitutional interpretation has received much attention in recent years. This article is a contribution to research using text mining methods to account for markers of constitutional reasoning in big data-sized text corpora. We examine how often the Hungarian Constitutional Court (the HCC) reflected on the various methods of interpretation. For this purpose, we have created a complex corpus covering all HCC decisions and orders between 1990 and 2021. We found evidence that the methodological practice of the HCC is not self-reflexive in general as only 44% of its decisions make a reference to at least one method of interpretation. We also show that the self-reflexive nature is even more prevalent (in fact, ubiquitous) in 100 doctrinally important decisions from the 30 years of jurisprudence in question. While this study is a first step towards the quantitative analysis of the reasoning of the constitutional judiciary, further mixed methods research is needed to account for intertemporal changes in such data and to refine the measurement of constitutional interpretation.","PeriodicalId":36157,"journal":{"name":"Studia Iuridica Lublinensia","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Transparency of Constitutional Reasoning: A Text Mining Analysis of the Hungarian Constitutional Court’s Jurisprudence\",\"authors\":\"Miklós Sebők, Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz, Rebeka Kiss, István Járay\",\"doi\":\"10.17951/sil.2023.32.3.11-44\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The analysis of constitutional interpretation has received much attention in recent years. This article is a contribution to research using text mining methods to account for markers of constitutional reasoning in big data-sized text corpora. We examine how often the Hungarian Constitutional Court (the HCC) reflected on the various methods of interpretation. For this purpose, we have created a complex corpus covering all HCC decisions and orders between 1990 and 2021. We found evidence that the methodological practice of the HCC is not self-reflexive in general as only 44% of its decisions make a reference to at least one method of interpretation. We also show that the self-reflexive nature is even more prevalent (in fact, ubiquitous) in 100 doctrinally important decisions from the 30 years of jurisprudence in question. While this study is a first step towards the quantitative analysis of the reasoning of the constitutional judiciary, further mixed methods research is needed to account for intertemporal changes in such data and to refine the measurement of constitutional interpretation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Iuridica Lublinensia\",\"volume\":\"99 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Iuridica Lublinensia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2023.32.3.11-44\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Iuridica Lublinensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2023.32.3.11-44","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,对宪法解释的分析备受关注。本文是对使用文本挖掘方法在大数据规模的文本语料库中解释宪法推理标记的研究的贡献。我们研究匈牙利宪法法院(HCC)对各种解释方法的反映频率。为此,我们创建了一个复杂的语料库,涵盖了1990年至2021年间所有HCC决策和命令。我们发现证据表明,HCC的方法实践通常不是自反性的,因为只有44%的决定参考了至少一种解释方法。我们还表明,在30年的法理学研究中,在100个重要的理论决定中,自我反思的性质甚至更为普遍(事实上,无处不在)。虽然这项研究是对宪法司法推理进行定量分析的第一步,但需要进一步的混合方法研究来解释这些数据的跨时期变化,并完善宪法解释的测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Transparency of Constitutional Reasoning: A Text Mining Analysis of the Hungarian Constitutional Court’s Jurisprudence
The analysis of constitutional interpretation has received much attention in recent years. This article is a contribution to research using text mining methods to account for markers of constitutional reasoning in big data-sized text corpora. We examine how often the Hungarian Constitutional Court (the HCC) reflected on the various methods of interpretation. For this purpose, we have created a complex corpus covering all HCC decisions and orders between 1990 and 2021. We found evidence that the methodological practice of the HCC is not self-reflexive in general as only 44% of its decisions make a reference to at least one method of interpretation. We also show that the self-reflexive nature is even more prevalent (in fact, ubiquitous) in 100 doctrinally important decisions from the 30 years of jurisprudence in question. While this study is a first step towards the quantitative analysis of the reasoning of the constitutional judiciary, further mixed methods research is needed to account for intertemporal changes in such data and to refine the measurement of constitutional interpretation.
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
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
×
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