Nordic CONREASON collection of data on constitutional reasoning in the Nordic Supreme Courts
Citation and access
Citation and access
Data access level:
Creator/Principal investigator(s):
Research principal:
Principal's reference number:
- ORU 2020/04204
Data contains personal data:
Yes
Type of personal data:
Reference to person through court order
Citation:
Language:
Method and outcome
Method and outcome
Unit of analysis:
Population:
The 40 leading constitutional cases of the seven Nordic supreme courts (280 observations in total)
Time method:
Sampling procedure:
Description of sampling:
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.
Time period(s) investigated:
Variables:
53
Number of individuals/objects:
280
Data collection - Content coding
Data collection - Content coding
Mode of collection:
Content coding
Description of the mode of collection:
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.
Time period(s) for data collection:
2022-06-01 - 2023-04-15
Sample size:
280
Source of the data:
- Registers/Records/Accounts: Legal
- Registers/Records/Accounts
Instrument
Instrument
Name:
Microsoft Excel
Type:
Technical instrument(s)
Geographic coverage
Geographic coverage
Geographic location:
Geographic description:
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden
Lowest geographic unit:
Country
Highest geographic unit:
Country
Administrative information
Administrative information
Responsible department/unit:
School of Behavioural, Social and Legal Sciences - Legal Science
Contributor(s):
- Maija Dahlberg - University of Eastern Finland
- Morten Nadim - University of Oslo - Department of Public and International Law
- Åsa Elmerot - Uppsala University - Department of Law
Funding
Funding
Funding agency:
- Stiftelsen Riksbankens Jubileumsfond
Opens a new window at ror.org.
ROROpens in a new tab
Award number:
P20-0110
Award title:
Nordisk exceptionalism? Kartläggning av konstitutionella resonemang i Norden
