Survey Study of 43 Supreme Court Common Law Judges on the Use of Foreign Law in Constitutional Rights Cases [electronic resource] Brian Flanagan, Sinead Ahern

2010-08-31

Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2010

1 online resource

Numeric

This is a survey study of 43 judges from the British House of Lords, the Caribbean Court of Justice, the High Court of Australia, and the Supreme Courts of Ireland, India, Israel, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States on the use of foreign law in constitutional rights cases. As the focus of attempts to both explain and justify the use of foreign law in constitutional discourse, the attitudes of apex judges are clearly at issue. The study aims to shed light on how common law judges view foreign law as a source of argument in constitutional rights matters, and how they "see" transnational sources. The data provide the basis for preliminary testing of globalist theory (associated with Anne-Marie Slaughter, Vicki Jackson and Chris McCrudden). More generally, they lend a practical insight to jurisprudential debates invoking the nature of judicial reasoning in appellate courts. We find that the conception of judges citing foreign law as a source of persuasive authority is of limited application. Citational opportunism and the aspiration to membership of an emerging international "guild" appear to be equally important strands in judicial attitudes towards foreign law. We argue that their presence is at odds with Ronald Dworkin's theory of legal objectivity, and revealed in a manner meeting his own methodological standard for attitudinal research.Cf: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29121.v1

Also available as downloadable files.

Data Sets / Online

English

June 14, 2019

Dataset

Data sets.