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

SND-ID: 2023-288. Version: 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.60689/zmk7-0z14

Add request for data

Associated documentation

Nordic CONREASON Codebook 1.7.pdf (344.69 KB)

Citation

Alternative title

Nordic CONREASON dataset

Creator/Principal investigator(s)

Katalin Kelemen - Örebro University

Research principal

Örebro University - School of Behavioural, Social and Legal Sciences - Legal Science

Principal's reference number

ORU 2020/04204

Description

The Nordic CONREASON project applies a comprehensive and systematic analysis of constitutional reasoning in the supreme courts of the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). The data documents the argumentative practice of the seven Nordic supreme courts in their leading constitutional cases. The project used the methodology of the CONREASON-project (http://real.mtak.hu/36806/1/2015_09_jakab.pdf), which ran between 2011-2016, led by Andras Jakab, Arthur Dyevre and Giulio Itzcovich, adapting it to the Nordic context. The dataset contains data concerning 53 variables, including information on the general characteristics of the cases, types of arguments and key constitutional concepts that appear in the judgments.

Data contains personal data

Yes

Type of personal data

Reference to person through court order

Language

English

Method and outcome

Unit of analysis

Other

Population

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

Time Method

Cross-section

Sampling procedure

Non-probability: Purposive

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. Show less..

Time period(s) investigated

1921 – 2022

Variables

Number of individuals/objects

280

Data format / data structure

Numeric

Text

Data collection

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
Instrument: Microsoft Excel (Technical instrument(s))
Sample size: 280
Source of the data: Registers/Records/Accounts: Legal, Registers/Records/Accounts

Geographic coverage

Geographic spread

Geographic location: Northern Europe

Geographic description: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden

Lowest geographic unit

Country

Highest geographic unit

Country

Administrative information

Responsible department/unit

School of Behavioural, Social and Legal Sciences - Legal Science

Contributor(s)

Helle Krunke - University of Copenhagen, Centre for European and Comparative Legal Studies (CECS)

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

Maija Dahlberg - University of Eastern Finland

Nicklas Pettersson - Örebro University, Business School

Morten Nadim - University of Oslo, Department of Public and International Law

Helle Krunke - University of Copenhagen, Centre for European and Comparative Legal Studies (CECS)

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

Maija Dahlberg - University of Eastern Finland

Nicklas Pettersson - Örebro University, Business School

Morten Nadim - University of Oslo, Department of Public and International Law

Åsa Elmerot - Uppsala University, Department of Law

Show less..

Funding

Funding agency: Stiftelsen Riksbankens Jubileumsfond
Funding agency's reference number: P20-0110
Project name on the application: Nordisk exceptionalism? Kartläggning av konstitutionella resonemang i Norden