Links rápidosAluno Alumni Professor Colaborador

Link landing

Link landing

Presencial
Empirical Studies of High Courts Conference
13 dez (sex)
• 08h
- 16h
Presencial
Empirical Studies of High Courts Conference
13 dez (sex)
• 08h
- 16h
Presencial
Empirical Studies of High Courts Conference
13 dez (sex)
• 08h
- 16h

Empirical studies on apex courts have grown in popularity and relevance over the last decade, spreading across the globe. Today, interdisciplinary teams of researchers advance theory while also developing new analytical tools and data sets to study judicial decision-making from a myriad of techniques - from new strategies in qualitative to quantitative methods, now ranging from traditional inferential models to predictive models and cutting-edge feature extraction in large masses of ruling text. Approaches for making sense of new evidence about judicial behavior range from rational choice frameworks to internal perspectives and empirically-informed legal and constitutional reasoning.

As the literature evolves around the world, the scope of these developments is visible in two recently released volumes - Epstein, Sadl, Grendstad and Weinshall's Oxford Handbook of Comparative Judicial Behavior, with contributors and cases spanning several continents, and Frölich's Constitutional Reasoning in the Latin American and Caribbean, a valuable insight into a constitutionally dynamic and diverse but still understudied region. In these two volumes, legal scholars and social scientists conceptualize frameworks for comparing judicial decision-making in high courts from complementary perspectives, to gain comparative insights on how apex courts and their judges decide.

On December 13th, 2024, Insper Law School in São Paulo will host the Comparative Empirical Studies of High Courts Conference. The Conference will bring together leading scholars of empirical studies of courts, including several contributors to the two volumes above. The goal of the conference is to promote dialogue between empirical scholars to discuss the challenges of assembling and interpreting data on courts with large dockets - courts that, unlike the well-studied case of the U.S. Supreme Court, decide thousands or even dozens of thousands of cases per year. What are the resulting theoretical challenges? What are the ensuing methodological challenges of dealing with datasets of 100+ thousand cases? How can research teams engineer individual-level voting data to enable more nuanced understanding of judicial behavior within apex courts?