Methodological Individualism and Substantive Disagreement in Constitutional Reasoning

23 Pages Posted: 31 Oct 2019

See all articles by Tamas Gyorfi

Tamas Gyorfi

University of Aberdeen - School of Law

Éva Boda-Balogh

University of Debrecen, Faculty of Law

Date Written: October 1, 2019

Abstract

Although it is common knowledge that judges in different legal systems have different conventions as to how they justify their decisions and some judges are more while others are less willing to articulate their positions, we did not have exact data about these differences in constitutional reasoning. Our research proposed a simple index (MI) to measure the level of methodological individualism. Drawing on the research design of the Conreason project, we used this index to compare the practice of 14 constitutional courts in landmark constitutional cases. In addition, we also measured the level of disagreement (JD) within these 14 courts and by introducing the concept of disagreement factor (DF) we analysed to what extent substantive disagreements contribute to the rise of the number of separate opinions and, hence, to the rise of methodological individualism.

Keywords: constitutional interpretation, legal reasoning, judicial opinions

JEL Classification: K10, K40

Suggested Citation

Gyorfi, Tamas and Boda-Balogh, Éva, Methodological Individualism and Substantive Disagreement in Constitutional Reasoning (October 1, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3473667

Tamas Gyorfi (Contact Author)

University of Aberdeen - School of Law ( email )

Taylor Building
King's College
Aberdeen, Scotland AB24 3UB
United Kingdom

HOME PAGE: http://https://www.abdn.ac.uk/law/people/profiles/t.gyorfi

Éva Boda-Balogh

University of Debrecen, Faculty of Law

Kassai u. 26.
H-4028 Debrecen, 4028
Hungary

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
18
Abstract Views
100
PlumX Metrics