IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v16y2019i3p671-688.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The German Federal Courts Dataset 1950–2019: From Paper Archives to Linked Open Data

Author

Listed:
  • Hanjo Hamann

Abstract

Various reasons explain why Europe lags behind the United States in empirical legal studies. One of them is a scarcity of available data on judicial decision making, even at the highest levels of adjudication. By institutional design, civil‐law judges have lower personal profiles than their common‐law counterparts. Hence very few empirical data are available on how courts are composed and how that composition changes over time. The present project remedies that by easing access to such data and lowering the threshold for empirical studies on judicial behavior. This paper introduces the German Federal Courts Dataset (GFCD) as a resource for empirical legal scholars, with the objective of inspiring more European lawyers to engage with empirical aspects of civil‐law adjudication. To that end, several thousand pages of German court documentation were digitized, transcribed into machine‐readable tables (ready to be imported into statistics software), and published online (www.richter-im-internet.de). To simultaneously explore innovative ways of sharing public‐domain datasets, the data were modeled as linked open data and imported into the Wikidata repository for use in any computational application.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanjo Hamann, 2019. "The German Federal Courts Dataset 1950–2019: From Paper Archives to Linked Open Data," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 671-688, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:16:y:2019:i:3:p:671-688
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12230
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12230
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12230?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jay N. Krehbiel, 2016. "The Politics of Judicial Procedures: The Role of Public Oral Hearings in the German Constitutional Court," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(4), pages 990-1005, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Keren Weinshall & Lee Epstein, 2020. "Developing High‐Quality Data Infrastructure for Legal Analytics: Introducing the Israeli Supreme Court Database," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 416-434, June.
    2. Tilko Swalve, 2022. "Does Group Familiarity Improve Deliberations in Judicial Teams? Evidence from the German Federal Court of Justice," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 223-249, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christoph Engel, 2024. "The German Constitutional Court – Activist, but not Partisan?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_04, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:16:y:2019:i:3:p:671-688. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.