Importance of judicial decisions as a perceived level of relevance

Studies employing network analysis to reveal hidden mechanisms in judicial decision making, both in common law as well as civil law countries often use rather vague concepts of ‘importance’ of judicial decisions, concepts that are not always thoroughly explained, tend towards certain relativity and...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Terezie Smejkalová
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Utrecht University School of Law 2020
Materias:	precedent normativity of judicial decision making case-law relevance optimal relevance network analysis civil law systems Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence K1-7720
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/349e0f9ca8ae4cd88ca51fa704437a83
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:349e0f9ca8ae4cd88ca51fa704437a83
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:349e0f9ca8ae4cd88ca51fa704437a832021-11-08T08:17:04ZImportance of judicial decisions as a perceived level of relevance1871-515X10.36633/ulr.504https://doaj.org/article/349e0f9ca8ae4cd88ca51fa704437a832020-05-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.utrechtlawreview.org/articles/504https://doaj.org/toc/1871-515XStudies employing network analysis to reveal hidden mechanisms in judicial decision making, both in common law as well as civil law countries often use rather vague concepts of ‘importance’ of judicial decisions, concepts that are not always thoroughly explained, tend towards certain relativity and are used together with other similar words [(legal) relevance, (legal) significance…], with or without attempting explanation of these concepts, or relying purely on operationalization. This paper argues that in the context of legal systems that do not recognize a doctrine of precedent this approach is either oversimplified, or even erroneous. It further shows that ‘importance’ of past case-law is essentially a matter of the judge’s choice. Approaching this concept in this manner allows me to show that this choice is explainable within the theoretical framework provided by theories of relevance. This paper focuses on two major approaches to relevance: linguistic pragmatism and information retrieval, and shows that the concept of optimal relevance, as understood by theories of relevance, may serve well as an underlying explanatory framework for answering the question of why judges tend to argue by referring to past case-law even in those legal systems that do not recognize a doctrine of binding precedent.Terezie SmejkalováUtrecht University School of Lawarticleprecedentnormativity of judicial decision makingcase-lawrelevanceoptimal relevancenetwork analysiscivil law systemsLaw in general. Comparative and uniform law. JurisprudenceK1-7720ENUtrecht Law Review, Vol 16, Iss 1 (2020)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	precedent normativity of judicial decision making case-law relevance optimal relevance network analysis civil law systems Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence K1-7720
spellingShingle	precedent normativity of judicial decision making case-law relevance optimal relevance network analysis civil law systems Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence K1-7720 Terezie Smejkalová Importance of judicial decisions as a perceived level of relevance
description	Studies employing network analysis to reveal hidden mechanisms in judicial decision making, both in common law as well as civil law countries often use rather vague concepts of ‘importance’ of judicial decisions, concepts that are not always thoroughly explained, tend towards certain relativity and are used together with other similar words [(legal) relevance, (legal) significance…], with or without attempting explanation of these concepts, or relying purely on operationalization. This paper argues that in the context of legal systems that do not recognize a doctrine of precedent this approach is either oversimplified, or even erroneous. It further shows that ‘importance’ of past case-law is essentially a matter of the judge’s choice. Approaching this concept in this manner allows me to show that this choice is explainable within the theoretical framework provided by theories of relevance. This paper focuses on two major approaches to relevance: linguistic pragmatism and information retrieval, and shows that the concept of optimal relevance, as understood by theories of relevance, may serve well as an underlying explanatory framework for answering the question of why judges tend to argue by referring to past case-law even in those legal systems that do not recognize a doctrine of binding precedent.
format	article
author	Terezie Smejkalová
author_facet	Terezie Smejkalová
author_sort	Terezie Smejkalová
title	Importance of judicial decisions as a perceived level of relevance
title_short	Importance of judicial decisions as a perceived level of relevance
title_full	Importance of judicial decisions as a perceived level of relevance
title_fullStr	Importance of judicial decisions as a perceived level of relevance
title_full_unstemmed	Importance of judicial decisions as a perceived level of relevance
title_sort	importance of judicial decisions as a perceived level of relevance
publisher	Utrecht University School of Law
publishDate	2020
url	https://doaj.org/article/349e0f9ca8ae4cd88ca51fa704437a83
work_keys_str_mv	AT tereziesmejkalova importanceofjudicialdecisionsasaperceivedlevelofrelevance
_version_	1718442795449974784

Importance of judicial decisions as a perceived level of relevance

Ejemplares similares