Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Avoiding the Common Wisdom Fallacy: The Role of Social Sciences in Constitutional Adjudication

Contents:

Author Info

  • Niels Petersen

    ()
    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    More than one hundred years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court started to refer to social science evidence in its judgments. However, this has not resonated with many constitutional courts outside the United States, in particular in continental Europe. This contribution has a twofold aim. First, it tries to show that legal reasoning in constitutional law is often based on empirical assumptions so that there is a strong need for the use of social sciences. However, constitutional courts often lack the necessary expertise to deal with empirical questions. Therefore, I will discuss three potential strategies to make use of social science evidence. Judges can interpret social facts on their own, they can afford a margin of appreciation to the legislator, or they can defer the question to social science experts. It will be argued that none of these strategies is satisfactory so that courts will have to employ a combination of different strategies. In order to illustrate the argument, I will discuss decisions of different jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada, Germany and South Africa.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2011_22online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods in its series Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods with number 2011_22.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: Sep 2011
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2011_22

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Kurt-Schumacher-Str. 10 - D- 53113 Bonn
    Phone: +49-(0)228 / 91416-0
    Fax: +49-(0)228 / 91416-55
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.coll.mpg.de/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: proportionality; comparative law; Germany; Uncertainty; margin of appreciation; constitutional law; Canada; South Africa; social sciences; empiricism;

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2011_22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marc Martin).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.