方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法；存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 批判性判例法分析× | 案例法分析× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 田野方法 | 田野方法 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | Late 1970s–1980s (CLS conference 1977; Unger 1983) | Medieval English common law; academic formalisation 19th–20th century |
| 提出者≠ | Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement; key figures include Duncan Kennedy, Roberto Unger, Mark Tushnet | Common law tradition (England); systematised in Anglo-American jurisprudence |
| 类型≠ | Qualitative legal research approach | Qualitative legal research method |
| 开创性文献≠ | Unger, R. M. (1983). The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Harvard Law Review, 96(3), 561–675. link ↗ | Hutchinson, T. (2010). Researching and Writing in Law (3rd ed.). Thomson Reuters. ISBN: 9780455227689 |
| 别名 | critical legal analysis, CLS case analysis, critical judicial analysis, critical legal reading | judicial decision analysis, legal case analysis, jurisprudential analysis, case-based legal research |
| 相关 | 6 | 6 |
| 摘要≠ | 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. | Case law analysis is a systematic method for examining judicial decisions to identify binding legal rules, evolving doctrines, and interpretive trends. Rooted in the common law tradition of stare decisis, it requires the researcher to locate the ratio decidendi — the binding reasoning — of each decision, distinguish it from obiter dicta, and trace how that reasoning has been applied, distinguished, or overruled across subsequent cases. The method is fundamental to legal scholarship, litigation strategy, and law reform research. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|