Comparar métodos
Revisa los métodos seleccionados uno junto a otro; las filas que difieren aparecen resaltadas.
| Investigación Jurídica Doctrinal Comparada× | Investigación jurídica doctrinal× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo | Métodos de campo | Métodos de campo |
| Familia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Año de origen≠ | 19th century origins; modern systematic form 1960s–1998 | 19th century (systematised ~1860s–1880s in common law jurisdictions) |
| Autor original≠ | Rooted in classical comparative law (Anselm von Feuerbach, early 19th c.); systematised by Zweigert & Kötz (1998) | Common law tradition; systematised by jurists such as A.V. Dicey and John Austin |
| Tipo≠ | Qualitative legal research design | Legal-analytical research method |
| Fuente seminal≠ | Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1998). An Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd ed., T. Weir, Trans.). Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0198268598 | Hutchinson, T. (2013). Researching and Writing in Law (3rd ed.). Thomson Reuters. ISBN: 9780455229829 |
| Alias | comparative-doctrinal method, cross-jurisdictional doctrinal analysis, comparative black-letter law research, CDLR | black-letter law research, legal doctrine analysis, analytical jurisprudence, traditional legal scholarship |
| Relacionados | 6 | 6 |
| Resumen≠ | Comparative doctrinal legal research systematically identifies, expounds, and compares the legal rules, principles, and doctrines governing the same problem across two or more jurisdictions. It combines the internal rigour of doctrinal analysis — mapping the authoritative sources of a single legal system — with the external perspective of comparative law, asking whether different legal systems solve the same social problem in similar or divergent ways and why. | Doctrinal legal research is the foundational methodology of legal scholarship. It systematically identifies, reads, and analyses authoritative legal sources — statutes, case law, constitutional texts, and regulations — to describe, explain, and critique the content and internal logic of legal doctrine. By working within the accepted hierarchy of legal sources, it answers the question 'What is the law?' with analytical rigour and interpretive precision, producing descriptions of settled doctrine and arguments for how ambiguities should be resolved. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de datos ↗ |
|
|