Nordic CONREASON collection of data on constitutional reasoning in the Nordic Supreme Courts

• Katalin Kelemen - Örebro University

  Opens a new window at orcid.org.

  ORCIDOpens in a new tab

• Örebro University

  Opens a new window at ror.org.

  ROROpens in a new tab

• ORU 2020/04204

• Access to data is restricted

• Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)Opens in a new tab

• English

• Other

The 40 leading constitutional cases of the seven Nordic supreme courts (280 observations in total)

• Cross-section

• Non-probability: Purposive
• Non-probability

The project participants analyse the 40 leading judgments of each of the 7 Nordic supreme courts. We limited the number of analysed judgments in order to be able to require the project participants to deliver an in-depth quantitative and qualitative analysis of the judgments. The project participants have been instructed to use the ‘expert method’ for the selection of leading cases, a method often applied in social sciences. By leading cases we mean the ‘canon of cases’ that they consider to be the ‘most well-known’ or ‘most important’ within the legal (scholarly and/or judicial) community. Thus, the project participants are supposed to guess about the general (mainstream) scholarly opinion on the list of 40 leading judgments. Possible proxies for the selection are: (1) cases that are typically included in a textbook on domestic constitutional law, (2) cases that are frequently cited in scholarly literature, and (3) cases that are often relied upon as precedents by the analysed court itself. None of these three proxies is, however, decisive in itself. The selection shall take into careful consideration a combination of all three factors. There is no time frame, so as a rule even very old cases may be included in the list, if they are still considered to be relevant and influential today. We assume that a relative consensus usually exists as to what decisions constitute leading judgments. To enhance the list’s accuracy, each project participant was also required to designate five constitutional law scholars of their own jurisdiction to review her choice of cases. The texts of the judgment were retrieved from official domestic databases of case-law. They have not been downloaded or stored by the project participants.

• 1921 - 2022

53

280

• Numeric
• Text

Content coding

Each project participant encoded information on a number of characteristics (53 variables in total), repeating this for every case in her set of cases. The coding was done in an Excel sheet, which were then object of aggregate analysis by a statistician.

2022-06-01 - 2023-04-15

280

• Registers/Records/Accounts: Legal
• Registers/Records/Accounts

• Northern Europe

Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden

Country

Country

School of Behavioural, Social and Legal Sciences - Legal Science

• Haukur Logi Karlsson - University of Iceland - School of Social Sciences

  Opens a new window at orcid.org.

  ORCIDOpens in a new tab
• Helle Krunke - University of Copenhagen - Centre for European and Comparative Legal Studies (CECS)

  Opens a new window at orcid.org.

  ORCIDOpens in a new tab
• Maija Dahlberg - University of Eastern Finland
• Nicklas Pettersson - Örebro University - Business School

  Opens a new window at orcid.org.

  ORCIDOpens in a new tab
• Morten Nadim - University of Oslo - Department of Public and International Law
• Åsa Elmerot - Uppsala University - Department of Law

• Legislation and legal systems

• Law

• Reasoning
• Constitutions
• Human rights
• Supreme courts
• Judgments (law)

• constitutional concepts
• constitutional law
• argumentation
• legal reasoning
• constitutional reasoning

• Nordic CONREASON ProjectOpens in a new tab