Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:01:22.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toleration, Synthesis or Replacement? The ‘Empirical Turn’ and its Consequences for the Science of International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2016

JAKOB V.H. HOLTERMANN  and
MIKAEL RASK MADSEN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the most striking trends in contemporary international law (IL) scholarship is the turn to empirical research methods. Some see this as sign of progress, whereas others call for caution or even show hostility. With a view to the future of IL scholarship, however, all sides in this at times heated debate seem to have considerable problems keeping a clear focus on the key question: What are the implications of this empirical turn in terms of philosophy of legal science, of the social understanding of IL, and, not least, of the place of doctrinal scholarship after the alleged Wende? What is needed, we argue, in order to answer this question is not yet another partisan suggestion, but rather an attempt at making intelligible both the oppositions and the possibilities of synthesis between normative and empirical approaches to law.

Based on our assessment and rational reconstruction of current arguments and positions we outline a taxonomy consisting of the following three basic, ideal-types in terms of the epistemological understanding of the interface of law and empirical studies: toleration, synthesis and replacement. This tripartite model proves useful with a view to teasing out and better articulating implications of and interrelations between positions. As such the model: i) provides a framework to better situate arguments about the role of empirical studies in IL; ii) helps identify real epistemological stakes in order to overcome ‘trench wars’ – or worse: absence of dialogue and genuine argument; and iii) thus ultimately contributes to the development of a genuine basic science-of-law.

Keywords

empirical studies of lawepistemology of lawinternational legal theorysociology of lawThe Empirical Turn
Type
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL THEORY: Symposium on the Changing Role of Scholarship in International Law
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 1001 - 1019
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Holmes, O., ‘The Path of the Law’, (1897) 10 Harvard Law Review 457 Google Scholar, at 469.

2 L. Eppstein and A. Martin, An Introduction to Empirical Legal Research (2014), at vii.

3 Shaffer, G. and Ginsburg, T., ‘The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship’, (2012) 106 AJIL 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Klabbers, J., ‘Counter-Disciplinarity’, (2010) 4 International Political Sociology 308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Admittedly, we have ourselves attempted to craft such a partisan position in the debate by arguing for an empirical approach to law that takes law seriously. See Holtermann, J. and Madsen, M., ‘European New Legal Realism and International Law: How to Make International Law Intelligible’, (2015) 28 LJIL 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 When we refer to empirical legal studies in the following, we do not refer to the specific branch of mainly quantitative studies of law associated with the Society for Empirical Legal Studies unless explicitly indicated by capitalizing the first letters.

7 J. Carbonnier, Sociologie juridique (1978).

8 This is the position we find in the classic works of Kelsen and Hart: H. Kelsen, Pure theory of law (1967, 1st German ed. 1934), H. Hart, The concept of law (2012). For a recent reformulation see Augsberg, I., ‘Von Einem neuerdings erhobenen empiristischen Ton in der Rechtswissenschaft’, (2012) 51 Der Staat 117;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kammerhofer, J., ‘Hans Kelsen in Today's International Legal Scholarship’, in Kammerhofer, J. (ed.), International Legal Positivism in a Post-Modern World (2014), 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 See our discussion of Max Weber and Alf Ross in this regard in Holtermann and Madsen, supra note 5.

10 For an overview, see the opening pages of Madsen, M., ‘The European Court of Human Rights and the Politics of International Law’, in Sandholtz, W. and Whytock, C. (eds.), The Politics of International Law (forthcoming 2016)Google Scholar.

11 Holtermann and Madsen, supra note 5. For further discussion of this, including of the problems surrounding what ‘empirical’ means in the context of the empirical turn, cf. J. Holtermann and M. Madsen, ‘What is Empirical in Empirical Studies of Law? A European New Legal Realist Conception’, Retfærd. Nordic Journal of Law and Justice (forthcoming).

12 Armstrong, K., ‘Legal Integration: Theorizing the Legal Dimension of European Integration’, (1998) 36 Journal of Common Market Studies 155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 155. For an analogous point, see Byers, M., ‘Taking the Law Out of International Law: A Critique of the “Iterative Perspective”’, (1997) 38 Harvard International Law Journal 201.Google Scholar

13 Cf., e.g., Kelsen, supra note 8; H. Kelsen, General theory of law and state (2009); and Hart, supra note 8, respectively. Keeping in mind the ideal typical character of all three positions outlined in this article, it would seem that the works of a number of prominent scholars of (international) law fit roughly the description of toleration presented here, including J. d'Aspremont, Formalism and the Sources of International Law: A Theory of the Ascertainment of Legal Rules (2011); Kammerhofer, supra note 8; Augsberg, supra note 8; Klabbers, supra note 4.

14 Kelsen, supra note 8, at 5–6.

15 Cf., e.g., ‘The validity of a legal order is thus dependent upon its agreement with reality, upon its “efficacy”’. Kelsen, General theory of law and state, supra note 13, at 120.

16 Especially in the context of international law, cf. also, e.g., d'Aspremont, supra note 13.

17 Which, to be sure, may in itself be a continuous process.

18 Hart, supra note 8, at 107.

19 Leiter, B., ‘Legal Formalism and Legal Realism: What Is the Issue?’, (2010) 16 Legal Theory 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Kelsen, H., ‘Eine Grundlegung der Rechtssoziologie’, (1914-1915) 39 Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 839.Google Scholar

21 Kelsen, General theory of law and state, supra note 13.

22 Kelsen, H., ‘Eine “Realistische” und die Reine Rechtslehre. Bemerkungen zu Alf Ross: On Law and Justice’, (1959-60) 10 Österreichische Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht 1.Google Scholar

23 Kelsen, supra note 20, at 875, quoted from Kammerhofer's English translation in Kammerhofer, supra note 8, at 104.

24 Cf., e.g., Kammerhofer, supra note 8; Augsberg, I., ‘Some Realism About New Legal Realism: What's New, What's Legal, What's Real?’, (2015) 28 LJIL 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a reply to Augsberg, see Holtermann, J. and Madsen, M., ‘High Stakes and Persistent Challenges – A Rejoinder to Klabbers and Augsberg’, (2015) 28 LJIL 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 For a debate of the place of socio-legal studies with regard to law and sociology (which also has a telling title), see R. Banakar, Merging Law and Sociology: Beyond the Dichotomies in Socio-Legal Research (2003).

26 Weiler, J., ‘The Transformation of Europe’, (1991) 100 The Yale Law Journal 2403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Shapiro, M., ‘Comparative law and comparative politics’, (1979) 53 S. Cal. L. Rev. 537.Google Scholar

28 Weiler, supra note 26, at 2409.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid., at 2410.

31 See also Weiler's later work which also analyzes European law and integration at a more structural level, yet always paying attention to legal details. See, for example, Weiler, B., ‘A Quiet Revolution: The European Court of Justice and Its Interlocutors’, (1994) 26 Comparative Political Studies 510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Weiler, B., ‘The Reformation of European Constitutionalism’, (1997) 35 Journal of Common Market Studies 97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 100.

33 Holtermann and Madsen, supra note 5.

34 Notably M. Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (2006).

35 For details see M. Koskenniemi, The Politics of International Law (2011).

36 Koskenniemi, M., ‘Letter to the Editors of the Symposium’, (1999) 93 AJIL 351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 M. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (2001).

38 Ibid., at 6.

39 Ibid., at 7.

40 See also the discussion in Galindo, G., ‘Martti Koskenniemi and the historiographical turn in international law’, (2005) 16 EJIL 539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 556–7.

41 Nourse, V. and Shaffer, G., ‘Empiricism, Experimentalism, and Conditional Theory’, (2014) 67 Southern Methodist University Law Review 141.Google Scholar

42 Shaffer, G., ‘The New Legal Realist Approach to International Law’, (2015) 28 LJIL 189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 193.

43 Holtermann and Madsen, supra note 5.

44 For example Erlanger, H. et al., ‘Is It Time for a New Legal Realism?’, (2005) 2005 Wisconsin Law Review 335.Google Scholar See also Garth, B., ‘Introduction: Taking new legal realism to transnational issues and institutions’, (2006) 31 Law & Social Inquiry 939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 I. Kant and N. Smith, Immanuel Kant's Critique of pure reason (1965); R. Rorty, The Linguistic Turn: Recent Essays in Philosophical Method (1970).

46 Shaffer and Ginsburg, supra note 3.

47 Klabbers, J., ‘The Bridge Crack'd: A Critical Look at Interdisciplinary Relations’, (2009) 23 International Relations 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 The following three paragraphs introducing philosophical naturalism follow closely the argument in J. Holtermann, ‘Getting Real or Staying Positive - Legal Realism(s), Legal Positivism and the Prospects of Naturalism in Jurisprudence’, (2015) Ratio Juris - An International Journal of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law (Early View), 11–13.

49 Notably, Quine, W., ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’, in Quine, W. (ed.), From a Logical Point of View: 9 Logico-Philosophical Essays (1980), 20;Google Scholar Quine, W., ‘Epistemology Naturalized’, in Quine, W. (ed.), Ontological Relativity and Other Essays (1969), 69.Google Scholar The idea of introducing naturalism in legal theory is particularly associated with the work of Brian Leiter in relation to American legal realism, cf., e.g., B. Leiter, Naturalizing jurisprudence: essays on American legal realism and naturalism in legal philosophy (2007). Naturalism has also been applied in relation to Scandinavian legal realism, cf., e.g., Holtermann, supra note 48.

50 This is also the main reason why we do not generally use the term naturalism to denote this third position – to avoid the unfortunate identification of empirical science with natural science.

51 Quine, ‘Epistemology Naturalized’, supra note 49, at 75 (emphasis added).

52 Cf. L. Wittgenstein, The Blue and Brown Books (1965), 28. It is impossible to do full justice to the vast array of self-proclaimed ‘heirs’ apparent among the empirical oriented human and social sciences, but the following list gives an impression of the impressive variety: M. Foucault and C. Gordon, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other writings, 1972-1977 (1980); D. Bloor, Knowledge and Social Imagery (1991); D. Bloor, Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge (1983); S. Shapin and S. Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (including a Translation of Thomas Hobbes, Dialogus physicus de natura aeris by Simon Schaffer, 1985); P. Bourdieu, Homo Academicus (1988); D. Simonton, Scientific Genius: A Psychology of Science (1988); P. Churchland, A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science (1989); E. Sober, From a Biological Point of View: Essays in Evolutionary Philosophy (1994); F. Sulloway, Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives (1996); T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1996); R. Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change (1998); M. Ruse, Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy (1998); and T. Söderqvist, Science as Autobiography: The Troubled Life of Niels Jerne (2003).

53 Most outspokenly by J. Klabbers, ‘The Relative Autonomy of International Law or the Forgotten Politics of Interdisciplinarity’, (2005) 1 Journal of International Law and International Relations 35. But see also, e.g., Byers, supra note 12.

54 Hafner-Burton, E., Victor, D. and Lupu, Y., ‘Political science research on international law: the state of the field’, (2012) 106 AJIL 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 This followed the more prospective call for such interdisciplinary also published in the AJIL in Burley, A., ‘International law and international relations theory: a dual agenda’, (1993) 87 AJIL 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 Hafner-Burton, Victor and Lupu, supra note 54, at 48.

57 See Abbott, K., ‘Modern international relations theory: a prospectus for international lawyers’, (1989) 14 Yale Journal of Internatonal Law, 335.Google Scholar

58 Dezalay, Y. and Madsen, M., ‘The Force of Law and Lawyers: Pierre Bourdieu and the Reflexive Sociology of Law’, (2012) 8 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 433 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 450.

59 Holtermann and Madsen, supra note 5, at 228.

60 J. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (1977), 49.

61 Eppstein and Martin, supra note 2, at 10.

62 As precisely pointed out by Rachlinski, the kind of questions tested in ELS tends not to solve or inform contentious social and political debates by offering allegedly neutral inputs but rather brings fuel to the fire. See J. Rachlinski, ‘Does Empirical Legal Studies Shed More Heat than Light? The Case of Civil Damage Awards’, (2015) Ratio Juris (Early View).

63 On this, cf., e.g., Šadl, U., ‘The Role of Effet Utile in Preserving the Continuity and Authority of European Union Law : Evidence from the Citation Web of the Pre-Accession Case Law of the Court of Justice of the EU’, (2015) 8 European Journal of Legal Studies 19 Google Scholar.

64 For the two different positions see respectively J. Goldsmith and E. Posner, The Limits of International Law (2005) and G. Calabresi, The Future of Law and Economics: Essays in Reform and Recollection (2016).

65 For an overview, see Madsen, M., ‘Sociological Approaches to International Courts’, in Alter, C., Romano, K. and Shany, Y. (eds.), Oxford University Press Handbook of International Adjudication (2014), 388 Google Scholar.

66 See M. Huber, ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis der soziologischen Grundlagen des Völkerrechts und der Staatengesellschaft’, (1910) Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart.

67 Koskenniemi, supra note 37, Chapter 4.