| Project Detail |
Constitutional law worldwide suffers from an empirical deficit: although evidence is needed to apply the law to concrete conflicts, constitutional analysis is dominated by high-level value judgments and pays little attention to empirical evidence. Unlike other fields of law, there are almost no empirical studies regarding constitutional controversies, and most courts, legislatures, and executives have no adequate procedures for establishing facts or reviewing evidence in constitutional matters.
The empirical deficit of constitutional law has detrimental consequences. It generates unpersuasive decisions; brings about inadvertent societal consequences; breeds accusations that constitutional decisions are subjective and biased; and lets unvalidated facts influence decisions in the absence of proper procedural safeguards.
EmpiriCon will develop a new approach that offers to rejuvenate constitutional law as an evidence-based field of law. Based on a comprehensive theoretical analysis of the empirical gaps in constitutional law (WP1), six multi-method empirical studies of key constitutional gaps (WP2), and eight survey experiments that examine the implications of rigorous fact-finding for public trust in constitutional decision making (WP3), I will develop a new theoretical and methodological approach (WP4), showing that empirical constitutional law is not only theoretically justified, but also methodologically feasible and concretely valuable. This approach will ground constitutional reasoning in transparent methodology, improve the quality of constitutional decisions, and may even increase public trust.
Simultaneously, the shift to empiricism involves risks, such as data manipulation, and has inherent limitations. I will incorporate the limitations, map out the risks, and propose ways to tackle them. If successful, the project will transform constitutional law, with far reaching implications for scholars, legislatures, executives, courts, and litigants. |
