5 Conclusion

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Strong SI
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Theoretical Studies ◽  
International Survey ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Research Outcomes ◽  
High Level

This chapter concludes the analysis by putting the new empirical research discussed earlier in the book into a larger practical and scholarly context. The chapter begins by considering how the empirical data measures up to theoretical studies in this area of law, pulling together select elements from the three research strands (i.e. the international survey, semi-structured interviews, and coding exercise) and focusing on particular issues of interest across the three major areas of comparison (i.e. the judicial–arbitral, domestic–international, and common law–civil law divides). While this summation is not intended to be comprehensive, it nevertheless provides a high-level overview of general research outcomes. Next, the chapter discusses certain unanticipated data that was generated during the course of the study and seeks to situate that information within the academic understanding of legal reasoning. Finally, the focus turns to the various ways that studies in legal reasoning might develop in the future as a result of the research reflected herein.

Legal Reasoning Across Commercial Disputes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Strong SI
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
International Survey ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
The Common ◽  
Commercial Disputes

This book offers a novel, multi-pronged empirical analysis of legal reasoning in commercial disputes, comparing data across three different axes: the judicial–arbitral divide, the domestic–international divide, and the common law–civil law divide. In so doing, this text provides important insights into how judges and arbitrators resolve complex commercial disputes in both national and international settings and conducts important comparisons between different procedures. The study includes three different empirical methodologies: a large-scale international survey, a series of semi-structured interviews, and a detailed quantitative (coding) exercise. Results from the three research strands are cross-verified through various triangulation techniques and tested against conventional wisdom regarding legal reasoning. This work will help judges, arbitrators, practitioners, clients, and scholars understand how legal reasoning is conducted in different settings, thereby improving the practical and understanding of how commercial disputes are resolved.

scholarly journals Emotions of Primary School Pupils in Mathematics Lessons

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-29
Author(s):  
Ineta Helmane
Keyword(s):  
Primary School ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Positive Emotions ◽  
Teaching Mathematics ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Learning Mathematics ◽  
Teaching Learning ◽  
Primary School Pupils ◽  
Negative Factors

Abstract The article describes and analyses theoretical and empirical materials about the pupils’ emotions in the process of teaching/learning mathematics in a primary school. The aim of the article is to investigate the experienced emotions by pupils when learning mathematics in a primary school and highlight the factors arousing emotions in learning mathematics in primary school. The article analyses the data obtained in empirical research on the emotions experienced by pupils during mathematics lessons in primary school. In questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, pupils reveal what gave them positive emotions in mathematics lessons, as well as what made them experience negative emotions. Based on the analysis of empirical data, we highlighted the factors of learning mathematics in primary school that caused positive emotions; however, the failure to comply with these factors caused negative factors in pupils. As a result of the research, it is possible to select the factors facilitating positive emotions while teaching mathematics in primary school.

Modeling Tourists' Opinions Using RIDIT Analysis

2017 ◽  
pp. 423-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subhajit Bhattacharya ◽  
Rohit Vishal Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Research Outcomes ◽  
Tourism Sector ◽  
Tourist Behaviour

In this chapter we have attempted to use “Relative to an Identified Distribution” (RIDIT) algorithms based modelling for analysing real-time empirical data relating to tourists' attitude and preference for a better understanding of the tourists' motivation and behaviour. RIDIT approach for evaluating the factors that influence tourist behaviour is not a very common approach in tourism sector. This chapter on modelling tourists' opinions and perceptions with RIDIT analysis would try to guide the empirical research in the domains of hospitality, tourism and travel research and analytics process in generating Optimized research outcomes.

Humor theory and the fear of being laughed at

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christie Davies
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
The Other ◽  
Social Variables ◽  
Humor Theory ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Future ◽  
The One ◽  
High Level

AbstractSystematic empirical research into the extent to which individuals in different societies fear being laughed at is new and has implications for humor theory. Humor theorists such as Hobbes and Bergson implicitly assume that such fears were generally at a high level and both Hobbes' superiority theory of laughter and Bergson's view of it as a social corrective depend on this assumption. They purport to be general theories but are in fact the product of the particular societies in which those philosophers' lived and whose mores they took for granted. However, we can use their work to generate hypotheses that can in the future be tested against the comparative empirical data now being produced. In particular we should pay attention is the social variables of shame, face, etiquette and embarrassment on the one hand, and hierarchy, status divisions and power on the other, as probably having explanatory power.

2 International Survey on Legal Reasoning

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Strong SI
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
International Survey ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Validity Testing ◽  
General Practices ◽  
And Behaviors

This chapter discusses results from a large-scale, international survey of judges and arbitrators, focusing on the beliefs and behaviors associated with legal reasoning. This study seeks to identify general practices and motivations regarding legal reasoning to determine whether and to what extent conventional wisdom in this field is correct. Many questions in the survey mirror those asked in the semi-structured interviews, which allows a certain amount of validity testing across the two studies. The survey also addresses issues considered in the quantitative (coding) exercise, thereby allowing further triangulation of results.

French Legal Bibliographies

1979 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-30
Author(s):  
David A. Combe
Keyword(s):  
American Association ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Special Relationship ◽  
French Law ◽  
High Level

For some time I have been aware of the need for law librarians, not merely in Louisiana (with its system of Civil Law and its special relationship to French Civil Law) but elsewhere as well to have access to the bibliographical works which guide us through the corpus of French law. At the American Association of Law Libraries Institute on the Civil Law in Montreal in 1977, I was extremely gratified to note the high level of interest in French law—even by librarians trained in Common Law! My experiences with the Institute, coupled with the reprinting in recent years of several of the most significant French legal bibliographies convinced me that greater exposure of these works is in order. Because of the introductory nature of this article, my tendency is to omit bibliographies which are virtually unobtainable. Also omitted are general bibliographies, even though law is included, and bibliographies which simply list materials. My obvious preferences are for those works which organize, systematize and classify legal works; those which describe or evaluate the works in question; and those which provide several points of entry by means of tables and indices.

Legal Reasoning and Legal Integration

2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaap Hage
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Case Based Reasoning ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Rule Application ◽  
The Common ◽  
European Civil Code ◽  
Case Based

According to Legrand, harmonization of European private law by means of a European Civil Code would not work, because of the different legal cultures (mentalités) within which such a code would have to operate. In the civil law tradition, legal reasoning on the basis of such a code would be deductive in the sense of the application of rules that are posited prior to the cases to which they should be applied. In the common law tradition, the starting point of legal reasoning is in the cases themselves. As a consequence, common law reasoning would abstract less from the peculiarities of individual cases. The main point of this paper is that Legrand's picture of civil law reasoning is based on the subsumption model of rule application, which does not allow adaptation of the law to the needs of concrete cases other than through the limited possibilities of interpretation. It is argued that this picture is wrong. As an alternative, the reason-based model of rule application is proposed, which allows legal decision makers much more leeway to tailor the law to the needs of concrete cases. In a comparison with case-based reasoning it is argued that rule-based reasoning, according to the reason-based model, gives the decision maker the same leeway. The final conclusion is that possible differences in legal culture between the civil law and the common law tradition are not rooted in the distinction between rule-based reasoning and case-based reasoning, and are therefore merely contingent. There is no reason why the introduction of a European Civil Code could not overcome the differences between the two traditions. Whether this would be desirable is a different question.

1 Introduction

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Strong SI
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
Legal Studies ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Commercial Disputes

This chapter provides an introduction to a new, multi-faceted empirical study on legal reasoning in commercial disputes by describing existing scholarship on legal reasoning as well as best practices in empirical legal studies.. In so doing, the discussion not only provides novel insights into general practices involving legal reasoning but also lays the foundation for further analysis by considering standard assumptions about differences in reasoning arising along the judicial–arbitral, domestic–international, and common law–civil law divides. These assumptions are tested throughout the book to determine whether and to what extent legal reasoning differs according to the nature of the decision-maker, the scope of the dispute or the legal tradition in which the matter is set.

“Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment?” – A Common Law Response

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
German Law ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
Level Of Abstraction ◽  
The Law ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment ◽  
High Level ◽  
Logical Process

In this article, Professor Steve Hedley offers a Common Law response to he recently published arguments of Professor Nils Jansen on the German law of unjustified enrichment (as to which, see Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment” (2016) 20 EdinLR 123). The author takes the view that Jansen's paper provided a welcome opportunity to reconsider not merely what unjust enrichment can logically be, but what it is for. He argues that unjust enrichment talk contributes little of value, and that the supposedly logical process of stating it at a high level of abstraction, and then seeking to deduce the law from that abstraction, merely distracts lawyers from the equities of the cases they consider.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document