Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/57504 
Kompletter Metadatensatz
DublinCore-FeldWertSprache
dc.contributor.authorPetersen, Nielsen
dc.date.accessioned2011-09-07-
dc.date.accessioned2012-04-24T11:05:26Z-
dc.date.available2012-04-24T11:05:26Z-
dc.date.issued2011-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/57504-
dc.description.abstractMore 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.en
dc.language.isoengen
dc.publisher|aMax Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods |cBonnen
dc.relation.ispartofseries|aPreprints of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods |x2011,22en
dc.subject.ddc330en
dc.subject.keywordproportionalityen
dc.subject.keywordcomparative lawen
dc.subject.keywordGermanyen
dc.subject.keywordUncertaintyen
dc.subject.keywordmargin of appreciationen
dc.subject.keywordconstitutional lawen
dc.subject.keywordCanadaen
dc.subject.keywordSouth Africaen
dc.subject.keywordsocial sciencesen
dc.subject.keywordempiricismen
dc.subject.stwStaatsrechten
dc.subject.stwVerfassungsgerichten
dc.subject.stwRechtsprechungen
dc.subject.stwSozialwissenschaften
dc.subject.stwEmpirische Methodeen
dc.subject.stwVergleichen
dc.subject.stwUSAen
dc.subject.stwKanadaen
dc.subject.stwDeutschlanden
dc.subject.stwSüdafrikaen
dc.titleAvoiding the common wisdom fallacy: The role of social sciences in constitutional adjudication-
dc.typeWorking Paperen
dc.identifier.ppn667821910en
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungenen

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
426.58 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.