Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Critical Case Law Analysis× | Recherche juridique doctrinale× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine | Méthodes de terrain | Méthodes de terrain |
| Famille | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Année d'origine≠ | Late 1970s–1980s (CLS conference 1977; Unger 1983) | 19th century (systematised ~1860s–1880s in common law jurisdictions) |
| Auteur d'origine≠ | Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement; key figures include Duncan Kennedy, Roberto Unger, Mark Tushnet | Common law tradition; systematised by jurists such as A.V. Dicey and John Austin |
| Type≠ | Qualitative legal research approach | Legal-analytical research method |
| Source fondatrice≠ | Unger, R. M. (1983). The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Harvard Law Review, 96(3), 561–675. link ↗ | Hutchinson, T. (2013). Researching and Writing in Law (3rd ed.). Thomson Reuters. ISBN: 9780455229829 |
| Alias | critical legal analysis, CLS case analysis, critical judicial analysis, critical legal reading | black-letter law research, legal doctrine analysis, analytical jurisprudence, traditional legal scholarship |
| Apparentées | 6 | 6 |
| Résumé≠ | Critical case law analysis applies the theoretical tools of Critical Legal Studies (CLS) to the examination of judicial decisions. Rather than accepting legal reasoning at face value, this approach interrogates how courts construct legal arguments, whose interests those arguments serve, and how ideological commitments are concealed beneath the appearance of neutral doctrinal logic. It exposes the political and social dimensions embedded in judicial language and outcomes. | 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. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|