CompLaw:司法审查比较研究的编码协议和数据库

Pub Date : 2024-05-24 DOI:10.1017/jlc.2024.4
Matthew Gabel, Clifford J. Carrubba, Gretchen Helmke, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey K. Staton, Dalston Ward, Jeffrey Ziegler
{"title":"CompLaw:司法审查比较研究的编码协议和数据库","authors":"Matthew Gabel, Clifford J. Carrubba, Gretchen Helmke, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey K. Staton, Dalston Ward, Jeffrey Ziegler","doi":"10.1017/jlc.2024.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n A growing theoretical literature identifies how the process of constitutional review shapes judicial decision-making, legislative behavior, and even the constitutionality of legislation and executive actions. However, the empirical interrogation of these theoretical arguments is limited by the absence of a common protocol for coding constitutional review decisions across courts and time. We introduce such a coding protocol and database (CompLaw) of rulings by 42 constitutional courts. To illustrate the value of CompLaw, we examine a heretofore untested empirical implication about how review timing relates to rulings of unconstitutionality (Ward and Gabel 2019). First, we conduct a nuanced analysis of rulings by the French Constitutional Council over a 13-year period. We then examine the relationship between review timing and strike rates with a set of national constitutional courts in one year. Our data analysis highlights the benefits and flexibility of the CompLaw coding protocol for scholars of judicial review.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":"6 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CompLaw: A Coding Protocol and Database for the Comparative Study of Judicial Review\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Gabel, Clifford J. Carrubba, Gretchen Helmke, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey K. Staton, Dalston Ward, Jeffrey Ziegler\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jlc.2024.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n A growing theoretical literature identifies how the process of constitutional review shapes judicial decision-making, legislative behavior, and even the constitutionality of legislation and executive actions. However, the empirical interrogation of these theoretical arguments is limited by the absence of a common protocol for coding constitutional review decisions across courts and time. We introduce such a coding protocol and database (CompLaw) of rulings by 42 constitutional courts. To illustrate the value of CompLaw, we examine a heretofore untested empirical implication about how review timing relates to rulings of unconstitutionality (Ward and Gabel 2019). First, we conduct a nuanced analysis of rulings by the French Constitutional Council over a 13-year period. We then examine the relationship between review timing and strike rates with a set of national constitutional courts in one year. Our data analysis highlights the benefits and flexibility of the CompLaw coding protocol for scholars of judicial review.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":\"6 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2024.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2024.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的理论文献指出了宪法审查程序如何影响司法决策、立法行为,甚至立法和行政行为的合宪性。然而,由于缺乏对不同法院和不同时间的宪法审查判决进行编码的通用协议,对这些理论论点的实证研究受到了限制。我们引入了这样一个编码协议和 42 个宪法法院裁决的数据库(CompLaw)。为了说明 CompLaw 的价值,我们研究了一个迄今未经验证的经验含义,即审查时间与违宪裁决之间的关系(Ward 和 Gabel,2019 年)。首先,我们对法国宪法委员会 13 年来的裁决进行了细致分析。然后,我们以一组国家宪法法院为研究对象,考察了审查时机与一年内罢工率之间的关系。我们的数据分析凸显了 CompLaw 编码协议对司法审查学者的益处和灵活性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
CompLaw: A Coding Protocol and Database for the Comparative Study of Judicial Review
A growing theoretical literature identifies how the process of constitutional review shapes judicial decision-making, legislative behavior, and even the constitutionality of legislation and executive actions. However, the empirical interrogation of these theoretical arguments is limited by the absence of a common protocol for coding constitutional review decisions across courts and time. We introduce such a coding protocol and database (CompLaw) of rulings by 42 constitutional courts. To illustrate the value of CompLaw, we examine a heretofore untested empirical implication about how review timing relates to rulings of unconstitutionality (Ward and Gabel 2019). First, we conduct a nuanced analysis of rulings by the French Constitutional Council over a 13-year period. We then examine the relationship between review timing and strike rates with a set of national constitutional courts in one year. Our data analysis highlights the benefits and flexibility of the CompLaw coding protocol for scholars of judicial review.
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
×
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