Citations in law and convention for annotations

Vol.8,No.15(2017)

Jakub Harašta Jakub Míšek Monika Hanych Pavel Loutocký Michal Malaník Jaromír Šavelka Markéta Štěpáníková Matěj Myška

https://doi.org/10.5817/RPT2017-1-4

PDF (Čeština)
Abstract
The paper presents a methodology for carrying out citation analysis of the Czech case law as a tool which enables gaining more accurate understanding of how the Czech courts operate with references to other decisions and documents for the sake of their argumentation. The presented methodology describes a reference as textual element consisting of four constituents. These are: SOURCE, TARGET, ARGUMENT and POLARITY. We claim that using these constituents it is possible to thoroughly describe both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of reference, and thus to meaningfully research them, too. Each of these constituents is further internally structured to enable (1) to overcome the shortcomings of current citation practice of Czech courts and (2) to obtain the most information possible from the reference for further analysis. The detailed structure of each constituent is described and justified within the paper. Challenges for further research on citation analysis are expressed in the conclusion of the paper. The introduced categories are ideal and not universally applicable for any kind of research. However, they are formulated in a way that allows their implementation for both qualitative and quantitative types of research focused on the role of citations in the case law and jurisprudence in general.

Keywords:
Citation analysis; Case Law; Legal Informatics; Reference

Pages:
s. 51–73
References

  1. BAŇOUCH, Hynek a Zdeněk KÜHN. O publikaci a citaci judikatury aneb proč je někdy judikatura jako císařovy nové šaty. Právní rozhledy, 2005, roč. 13, č. 13, s. 484-495. ISSN 1210-6410.

  2. BOBEK, Michal, Zdeněk KÜHN a kol. Judikatura a právní argumentace. 2. Vydání. Praha: Auditorium, 2013, 496 s. ISBN 978-80-87284-35.

  3. CROSS, Frank. Determinants of Citations to Supreme Court Opinions (And the Remarkable Influence of Justice Scalia). Supreme Court Economic Review, 2010, roč. 18, č. 1, s. 177-202. ISSN 0736-9921. https://doi.org/10.1086/659986">https://doi.org/10.1086/659986

  4. DERLÉN, Mattias a Johan LINDHOLM. Goodbye van Gend en Loos, Hello Bosman? Using Network Analysis to Measure the Importance of Individual CJEU Judgments. European Law Journal, 2014, roč. 20, č. 5, s. 667-687. ISSN 1468-0386. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12077">https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12077

  5. FOWLER, James H. et al. Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Analysis, 2007, roč. 15, č. 3, s. 324-346. ISSN 1047-1987. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpm011">https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpm011

  6. FOWLER, James H. a Sangick JEON. The Authority of Supreme Court Precedent. Social Networks, 2008, roč. 30, č. 1, s. 16-30. ISSN 0378-8733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2007.05.001">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2007.05.001

  7. GADBIN-GEORGE, Géraldine. To quote or not to quote: “Literature in law” in European court decisions and legal English teaching. ASp. la revue du GERAS. 2013, roč. 21, č. 64, s. 75-93. ISSN 2108-6354.

  8. GARFIELD, Eugene. Citation Indexes for Science. Science, 1955, roč. 122, č. 3159, s. 108-111. ISSN 0036-8075.

  9. GEIST, Anton. Using Citation Analysis Techniques for Computer-Assisted Legal Research in Continental Jurisdictions. Kvalifikační práce (University of Edinburgh, LLM) [online]. 2009, 103 s. [vid. 31. května 2017]. Dostupné z: https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/
    handle/1842/3511/GeistLLM2009.pdf?sequence=2.

  10. GEIST, Anton. The Open Revolution: Using Citation Analysis to Improve Legal Text Retrieval. European Journal of Legal Studies, 2010, roč. 2, č. 3. ISSN 1973-2937.

  11. HAMANN, Hanjo. Die Fußnote, das unbekannte Wesen. Potential und Grenzen juristischer Zitationsanalyse. Rechtswissenschaft. Zeitschrift für rechtswissenschaftliche Forschung, 2014, roč. 5, č. 4, s. 501-534. ISSN 1868-8098.

  12. HARAŠTA, Jakub. K významu citační analýzy při aplikaci práva. Správní právo, 2017, roč. 50, č. 3, s. 154-162. ISSN 0139-6005.

  13. HARAŠTA, Jakub. Nejednoznačnost odkazů k soudním rozhodnutím a možnost řešení. Revue pro právo a technologie, 2015, roč. 6, č. 11, s. 15-28. ISSN 1805-2797.

  14. HENDERSON, M. Todd. Citing fiction. The Green Bag An Entertaining Journal of Law. 2008, roč. 11, s. 171-185. ISSN 1095-5216.

  15. HOECKE, Mark van. Legal Doctrine: Which Method(s) for What Kind of Discipline? In: HOECKE, Mark van, ed. Methodologies of legal research: which kind of method for what kind of discipline? Oxford, Portland: Hart, 2011, s. 294. ISBN 978-1-849-46499-4.

  16. KNAPP, Viktor. Teorie práva. Praha: C.H. Beck, 1999, 264 s. ISBN 80-7179-028-1.

  17. LANDES, William a Richard A. POSNER. Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. The Journal of Law & Economics, 1976, roč. 19, č. 2, s. 249-307. ISSN 0022-2186. https://doi.org/10.1086/466868">https://doi.org/10.1086/466868

  18. LIEBLER, Raizel a June LIEBERT. Something Rotten in the State of Legal Citation: The Life Span of a United States Supreme Court Citation Containing an Internet Link (1996-2010). Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 2013, roč. 15, č. 2, s. 273-311.

  19. LIU, John S., Hsiao-Hui CHEN, Mei Hsiu-Ching HO a Yu-Chen LI. Citations with different levels of relevancy: Tracing the main paths of legal opinions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, roč. 65, č. 12, s. 2479-2488. ISSN 2330-1643. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23135">https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23135

  20. LUPU, Yoanatan a Erik VOETEN. Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights. British Journal of Political Sciences, 2012, roč. 42, č. 2, s. 413-439. ISSN 0007-1234.

  21. MACCORMICK, Neil a Robert S. SUMMERS. Interpreting precedents: a comparative study. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997, 585 s. ISBN 978-1-138-27024-4.

  22. MYŠKA, Matěj, Jakub HARAŠTA, Pavel LOUTOCKÝ a Jakub MÍŠEK. Možnosti citační analýzy v České republice. Revue pro právo a technologie, Masarykova univerzita, 2016, roč. 7, č. 13, s. 147-189. ISSN 1804-5383.

  23. NEALE, Thom. Citation Analysis of Canadian Case Law. Journal of Open Access to Law, 2013, roč. 1, č. 1, s. 1-60. ISSN 2372-7152.

  24. PANAGIS, Yannis a Urška Šadl. Making EU (case)law: Evidence from a paragraph-to-paragraph network on the cases concerning the citizenship of the European Union. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2015), Law and Big Data Workshop. San Diego, 2015, s. 1-8.

  25. PANAGIS, Ioannis a Urška ŠADL. The force of EU case law: An empirical study of precedential constraint. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2015: 28th Annual Conference. Amsterdam: IOS Press BV, 2015, s. 71-80. ISBN 978-1-61499-608-8.

  26. PERELMAN, Chaïm a Lucie OLBRECHTS-TYTECA. The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008, 566 s. ISBN 978-0-268-00446-0.

  27. POSNER, Richard A. An Economic Analysis of the Use of Citations in the Law. American Law and Economics Review, 2000, roč. 2, č. 2, s. 381-406. ISSN 1465-7260. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/2.2.381">https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/2.2.381

  28. PRICE, Derek J. de Solla. Network of Scientific Papers. Science, 1965, roč. 149, č. 3683, s. 510-515. ISSN 0036-8075.

  29. SASALA, Kathleen M. Shepardizing and Keyciting online [online]. March 25, 2011 [vid. 31. května 2017]. Dostupné z: http://www.clelaw.lib.oh.us/public/misc/Shepardizing%20and%20KeyCiting.html.

  30. SHULAYEVA, Olga, Advaith SIDDHARTHAN a Adam WYNER. Recognizing Cited Facts and Principles in Legal Judgements. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2017, roč. 25, č. 1, s. 107-126. ISSN 1572-8382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9197-6">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9197-6

  31. SMEJKALOVÁ, Terezie. Argumentace krásnou literaturou. In HAMUĽÁK, Ondrej. Právo v umění a umění v právu: sborník odborných příspěvků z mezinárodní konference Olomoucké debaty mladých právníků 2011. Praha: Leges, 2011. s. 23-31. ISBN 978-80-87576-14-4.

  32. SOBEK, Tomáš. Argumenty teorie práva. Plzeň: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, 2008, 330 s. Ediční řada Ústavu státu a práva AVČR. ISBN 978-80-904024-5-4.

  33. WINKELS, Radboud, Jelle de RUYTER a Henryk KROESE. Determining the Authority of Dutch Case Law. In ATKINSON, Katie (ed.). Legal Knowledge and Information Systems JURIX 2011: The Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference. Amsterdam: IOS Press BV, 2011, s. 103-112. ISBN 978-1-607-50980-6

  34. WINKELS, Radboud a Jelle de RUYTER. Survival of the Fittest: Network Analysis of Dutch Supreme Court Cases. In PALMIRANI, Monika, Ugo PAGALLO, Pompeu CASANOVAS a Giovanni SARTOR (eds.). AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems - Models and Ethical Challenges for Legal Systems, Legal Language and Legal Ontologies, Argumentation and Software Agents, Berlin: Springer, 2012, s. 106-115. ISBN 978-3-642-35730-5.

Metrics

1

Crossref logo

0

883

Views

356

PDF (Čeština) views

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2017 Jakub Harašta, Jakub Míšek, Monika Hanych, Pavel Loutocký, Michal Malaník, Jaromír Šavelka, Markéta Štěpáníková, Matěj Myška

PDF (Čeština)