The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 40 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement
Open accessAbstract
Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement The paper offers a legal theoretical analysis of the disciplinary character of the contemporary practice of legal scholarship. It is assumed that the challenges of interdisciplinary engagement are particularly revealing about the nature of legal scholarship. The paper argues for an understanding of legal scholarship that revolves around cultivating doctrinal knowledge about law. Legal scholarship is characterised as a normative and interpretive discipline that offers an internalist and non-instrumentalist perspective on law. The paper also argues that interdisciplinary engagement is sometimes necessary for legal scholars because some concepts and ideas built into the doctrinal structures of law cannot be made fully intelligible by way of pure normative legal analysis. This point is developed with the help of an epistemological clarification of doctrinal knowledge and anchored in an account of the practice of legal scholarship. The paper explores the implications of this account by way of analysing three paradigms of interdisciplinary engagement that respond to distinctive challenges facing legal scholarship: (1) understanding better the extra-legal origins of legal ideas, (2) managing discursive encounters that can generate frictions between disciplinary perspectives, and (3) building the knowledge base to handle challenge of validating policy initiatives that aim at changing the law. In different ways, all three challenges may require legal scholars to build competence in other disciplines. The third paradigm has particular relevance for understanding the methodological profile of legal scholarship. Legal scholarship is the only discipline with specific focus on how the social environment affects the doctrinal structures of law.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
146 Own interpretation · 31 Sources not found · 2 No basis given
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The systemic perspective on the law also enables legal scholars to reorder and 'remap' the doctrinal structures of law when facing sweeping changes to legal materials (as a result of major legislative reforms or groundbreaking judicial decisions).”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As to the substantive points of the paper, I argue that we can identify a distinctive rationale for interdisciplinary engagement in legal scholarship.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Legal scholarship does not simply engage with given institutional practices: it internalises their value assumptions.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“sort of quality control over judicial reasoning as it is manifested in upper court practice.12”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites H.T. Edwards, 'The Growing Disjunction between Legal Education and the Legal Profession', 91 Michigan Law Review 34, at 43-5 (1992).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a very real sense, interdisciplinary engagement becomes a vital aspect of maintaining and improving the ability of legal scholarship to cultivate doctrinal knowledge.”
- Also stated in: § Interdisciplinary Engagement · plain
“And, of course, it means that interdisciplinary engagement becomes a vital aspect of maintaining and improving the ability of legal scholarship to cultivate doctrinal knowledge.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is a constant flow of extra-legal information into legal procedures and practice-related policy debates that pervasively affects how law's normative materials turn out.
- Also stated in: § Interdisciplinary Engagement · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In different ways, all three challenges may require legal scholars to build competence in other disciplines.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Abstract
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“More importantly, it makes an explicit commitment to maintain the practice in its integrity and rationality.17”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Peter Birks, 'The Academic and the Practitioner', 18 Legal Studies 397, at 401 (1998).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites MacCormick, above n.11, at 6.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Actually, one of the key features of legal scholarship is the way its normative character and internalism come to be closely intertwined.19”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites C. McCrudden, 'Legal Research and the Social Sciences', 122 Law Quarterly Review 632, at 633 (2006).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The paper also argues that interdisciplinary engagement is sometimes necessary for legal scholars because some concepts and ideas built into the doctrinal structures of law cannot be made fully intelligible by way of pure normative legal analysis.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“Due to certain features of law (that I address below and especially in the fourth section), cultivating doctrinal knowledge about law requires legal scholars to work with concepts and ideas that cannot be made fully intelligible through mere normative legal analysis.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Abstract
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We can also glean from the characteristic activities of legal scholars that legal scholarship is interpretive in character.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 106
- It may state two separate claims as one. 29
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“They develop and maintain a systemic perspective on existing normative materials and legal developments.11”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites van Hoecke and Ost, above n.2, at 197
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites N. MacCormick, Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory (2007), at 6.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though legal scholarship is built on an eminently viable epistemological paradigm (that I will outline in section three), currently it is not in the best shape to fulfil its potentials.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, doctrinal knowledge exists in a state of permanent renewal due to the extralegal information flowing into legal procedures and policy debates.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two are intertwined because doctrinal plausibility is a vital factor in assessing the feasibility of policies in an institutional environment.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are epistemic gains to be realised by doctrinal scholarship that are ripe for academic study and that are not accessible to other disciplines.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Increasingly, contemporary legal scholarship is filling with policy content, and legal scholars often position themselves as experts on certain policy matters (energy policy, environmental policy, etc.).14”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites A. Boute, 'Energy Efficiency as a New Paradigm of the European External Energy Policy: The Case of the EU-Russian Energy Dialogue', 65 Europe-Asia Studies 1021 (2013).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is built into the very conceptual dynamics of interdisciplinary engagements that it brings into sharp relief the methodological integrity of participating disciplines.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though there is a very real sense of uncertainty about its role and character, legal scholarship has also shown remarkable resilience and staying power.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Legal scholars may be the ones best qualified to figure out which policies (and by what legal strategies) can be written into law 15 and also to figure out how the prospects of policies are affected by institutional decisions (like a court ruling).”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In that sense, more interdisciplinary engagement actually strengthens the identity of legal scholarship as a doctrinal discipline.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second level is contestation on the ways in which the law could be changed for the better.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Law is a normative and institutional social practice that seeks to guide behaviour.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Legal scholarship is explicitly normative (as opposed to having a hidden normative agenda -which is often the case with some sociological and anthropological research.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Legal scholars work from conceptions on how the elements of the law fit together in their respective fields, and this qualifies them for assessing whether current developments can be reconciled with the given normative structures of law.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The third paradigm has particular relevance for understanding the methodological profile of legal scholarship.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Abstract
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Naturally, the two levels of contestation affect each other in many ways -creating dialectical tensions in the legal competence of lawyers, as well as legal scholars.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Legal scholarship is the only discipline with specific focus on how the social environment affects the doctrinal structures of law.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though legal scholarship is built on an eminently viable epistemological paradigm (that I will outline in section three), currently it is not in the best shape to fulfil its potentials.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As it is engagement between disciplines, 9 it is premised on acknowledging ineradicable differences in disciplinary character and methodological profile.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They hint at the methodological characteristics of a normative and interpretive discipline that looks at legal practices from a strong internalist point of view.16”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites S. Perry, 'Interpretation and Methodology in Legal Theory', in A. Marmor (ed.), Law and Interpretation: Essays in Legal Philosophy (1995) 97, at 98.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Perhaps a bit less obviously, they also address contested matters on the exact normative scope of legal materials.13”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites A. Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (2006).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites D. Kinley and J. Tadaki, 'The Emergence of Human Rights Responsibilities for Corporations in International Law', 44 Virginia Journal of International Law 931 (2004).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites E. Engle, 'Extraterritorial Corporate Criminal Liability: A Remedy for Human Rights Violations?', 20 St. John's Journal of Legal Commentary 287 (2006).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Legal scholarship is characterised as a normative and interpretive discipline that offers an internalist and non-instrumentalist perspective on law.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The paper argues for an understanding of legal scholarship that revolves around cultivating doctrinal knowledge about law.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“It confers on legal scholarship the function of cultivating doctrinal knowledge about law.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I believe that these activities can be usefully understood as manifestations of the epistemological profile of a distinctive disciplinary perspective.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I believe that it is more appropriate to think of interdisciplinary engagement in terms of a series of paradigms that originate from particular (but recurrent) methodological challenges facing legal scholars and that are related to different aspects of the work legal scholars do.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without this, it could not take on the role of exercising quality control over judicial reasoning -it could not claim to offer an insider look on legal developments and chal-”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These characteristic activities may cover most of what legal scholars do, but we should not forget that legal scholars also characteristically engage with issues of institutional design.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Engaging with institutional design facilitates creative approaches to the systemic aspects of existing law.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“The law is not just a system of action-guiding norms but a framework for deliberation and public justification as well, 37”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [37]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first concerns gaining some interpretive depth on the concepts and ideas deposited in law.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And the epistemological justification for that commitment lies in the conviction that a noninstrumentalist perspective on the given practice promises specific epistemic gains.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(1) Doctrinal knowledge is practice oriented: it is born out of engagement with the normative aspects of social practices.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It understands social practices as inherently precarious: they would not survive without the commitment and contribution of its participants.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Engaging with the practice is never simply about how to use its normative materials and institutional structures to one's subjective ends.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It brings home the point that the normative elements of law are (to a varying extent) contingent.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doctrinal knowledge enables them to figure out what is compatible with fidelity to the given practicewhat can be done and said without running the risk of becoming an outsider.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More specifically, a valueladen assumption about legal practices is constitutive of the perspective of legal scholarship: it is an improvement on the normative structures of social life and the institutional procedures of governance that they are permeated by legal norms.20”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the sense relevant for us here, accepting normative guidance does not simply mean that one factors in the norms of a social practice in practical deliberations.It is actually a manifestation of a specific mode of participation.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“(4) Doctrinal knowledge is normative and not simply because its objects are norms and their justificatory implications but mainly because it is adjusted to a practical orientation: accepting normative guidance from the given practice 32 and being committed to maintaining it in its integrity.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Interpretive engagement combined with explicit practical concerns can also be characteristic of applied ethics (e.g.bioethics 24 ).”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Or, to put it in more abstract terms, 'legality' (that is, the ideal of the 'rule of law' as manifested in legal practices) is an attractive value with great social and political importance.21”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ronald Dworkin, Justice in Robes (2006), at 5.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites D. Sugarman, 'Legal Theory, the Common Law Mind and the Making of the Textbook Tradition', in William Twining (ed.), Legal Theory and Common Law (1986), at 27.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If this is true, the paradigms of interdisciplinary engagement must all be related to the various challenges that the flow of extralegal information into the law poses.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is a constant flow of extra-legal information into legal procedures and practice-related policy debates that pervasively affects how law's normative materials turn out.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doctrinal knowledge builds competence about the justificatory implications of the normative terms of participation.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An understanding of the normative implications of the practice, the competence criteria for participation, and the feasible ways of improving the given practice all develop from interpretive engagements with the positive law.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The law has its own internal value structures, but they interact with a large amount of extralegal information.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All epistemic gains legal scholarship offers are premised on knowing what the law is.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, the concern with institutional design brings into focus the complicated relationship between the normative implications of the existing law and considerations of public policy.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and, even when it develops artificial categories (like 'legal causation' and 'remoteness of damage'), the justifications it provides for practical judgements must remain intelligible for its addressees.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Much of the practice of the social sciences is interpretive (e.g.social anthropology), but, unlike legal scholarship, it is not explicitly normative.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ignorance about this pedigree of the normative materials of law can make legal scholarship positively implausible.It can make the interpretive engagement with the positive law (which is the bread and butter of legal scholarship) shallow and erratic.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.1 Understanding Extralegal Origins
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I note that the way interpretivism plays out in legal scholarship is crucial to understanding its distinctive character.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doctrinal knowledge is premised on the acceptance of normative guidance from the relevant practice.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I have claimed that doctrinal knowledge answers to the epistemic needs of those who accept normative guidance from the practice.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(3) Doctrinal knowledge is practice specific and interpretative: it takes an internal point of view to actual, historically contingent practices and is limited to those practices in its truth claims.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mastering doctrinal knowledge presupposes the familiarity with the norms of the given practice ('knowing what the rules are'), but this is not what determines its character.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) Doctrinal knowledge perceives practices as contingent, man-made, and subject to change.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, it is knowledge fit into the normative parameters for social practices.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is no surprise that all legal scholars demonstrate some understanding of the historical depth of legal concepts -e.g. of the political philosophical categories that found their way to their doctrinal arsenal (like the 'separation of powers', 'sovereignty', or 'democracy').”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.1 Understanding Extralegal Origins
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second concerns situations where legal scholarship comes into potential conflict with alternative disciplinary perspectives.”
- Also stated in: § 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives · plain
“As I have indicated, the second paradigm concerns situations where legal scholarship comes into potential conflict with alternative disciplinary perspectives.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, it means the doctrinal knowledge 'internalises' the viewpoint of the committed participants of the practice.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It helps figure out how far one can go without falling foul of the normative terms of participation.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the economic analysis of law (that has the methodological profile of economics) has a normative agenda, but it is imposed on law -not revealed from it by way of interpretive engagement with positive law.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(5) And, finally, doctrinal knowledge is noninstrumental about the practice it is related to.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this respect, the only other discipline on par with legal scholarship in terms of its methodological features is theology (when it attributes the authority of the 'sacred' to certain texts).”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, doctrinal knowledge exists in a state of permanent renewal, and legal scholarship cannot claim exclusive semantic competence to define the categories it operates with (the way some formal sciences like mathematics can).”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Legal scholarship is unlike political and moral philosophy: the latter is explicitly normative but not practice specific and interpretive in their truth claims.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gaining doctrinal knowledge enables one to align one's actions and practical judgments with the normative content of the given practice -to get clear on what it takes to act and reason without subverting its integrity.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I have also pointed out above that, even though interdisciplinary engagement in legal scholarship has broad methodological varieties, it still has a distinctive rationale (that is due to certain features of law).”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the end of the day, its epistemic gains are meaningful only for those who know the law or want to know the law as it has been laid down by authorities.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And the challenge of reforming the law again and again raises stark questions for legal scholarship about the ways of protecting the integrity, coherence, and rationality of the law.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As to the distinctive rationale of interdisciplinary engagement, it needs to be linked to the very function of legal scholarship: cultivating doctrinal knowledge.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The conceptual elements doctrinal structures are built from typically have some historical depth (they did not always mean what they mean now), and they often reflect the impact of political controversies and compromises.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.1 Understanding Extralegal Origins
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And the third concerns the pressure of extra-legal considerations for altering the law.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As to the distinctive rationale of interdisciplinary engagement, it needs to be linked to the very function of legal scholarship: cultivating doctrinal knowledge.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems to me that legal scholarship of any notable quality is very much characterised by the shuffling between the multifarious analysis of given normative materials and addressing issues of institutional design.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > Interdisciplinary Engagement
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Legal scholarship has two analytically distinguishable aspects: dealing with existing legal materials and engaging with challenges of institutional design.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, doctrinal knowledge thrives on contestation.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The distinctive feature is that the interpretivism of legal scholarship revolves around the authority attributed to canonical normative texts (i.e.positive law).”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In my understanding, doctrinal knowledge grows in and around normative social practices (like the different incarnations of law or religious practices), and it is specifically focused on their normative aspects.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Law is a normative social practice.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doctrinal knowledge is particularly important for those who seek to gain competence in navigating fields of contestation within normative practices.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This is widely acknowledged by scholars who reflect on the character of legal scholarship -although they are very much divided on whether they should welcome its implications.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 3 Doctrinal Knowledge and Doctrinal Scholarship
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tomlins
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Vick
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interpretive engagement with normative materials is common in other disciplines as well -most obviously in history.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 1 Introduction
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It assumes a fundamentally supportive relationship between legal scholarship and the relevant other disciplines.One discipline can lend more interpretive depth to the other.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are categories that are crucial for legal scholarship for their doctrinal significance but other disciplines also have significant stakes in them.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It meant taking a far deeper look at philosophical issues than mere doctrinal reflection could ever warrant: it indeed meant significant interdisciplinary engagement.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.1 Understanding Extralegal Origins
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For those who resisted the reconstitution of tort law along the lines of an essentially consequentialist project, digging down to the (Aristotelian) philosophical origins of traditional tort law doctrine offered the promise of more interpretive and theoretical depth in their doctrinal positions.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.1 Understanding Extralegal Origins
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, when it comes to the impact the law makes on society, other disciplines -and sociology and economics in particular -are far better positioned than legal scholarship.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pressure from ambitious policy initiatives to alter or restructure the law tends to come from outside legal scholarship.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The third paradigm of interdisciplinary engagement may well be the most significant from a methodological point of view -the most revealing about the character of doctrinal knowledge, of legal scholarship, and of the way doctrinal disciplinarity fits into the broader academic environment.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a sense, the motivation for interdisciplinary engagement was not just interpretivism but the felt need to preserve the noninstrumentalist perspective of legal scholarship.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.1 Understanding Extralegal Origins
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And it certainly does not make it plausible to think that the law is a mere institutional tool for implementing policies.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It also helps us understand that there is no inherent tension between the concerns of legal scholarship and policy-driven approaches to practical challenges.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of them see themselves experts for the academic validation of policy preferences, as well as experts of doctrinal analysis.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even in the context of intense interdisciplinary communication, the primary focus for legal scholarship remains markedly different from other disciplines.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As an academic discipline, legal scholarship needs academic validation for the substantive ideas that it chooses to embed in the doctrinal structure of the existing law.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Legal scholars' professional credibility depends on academic validation.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without its contribution, the question of how the social environment affects the law (as opposed to how the law affects the social environment) and what can and cannot be done without undermining the doctrinal structures of law would be left without adequate academic reflection.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“for contemporary legal scholarship, issues of institutional design arise in an intellectual and political environment in which a flood of policy initiatives keep the law under constant pressure.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [51]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Communication and some form of accommodation are unavoidable.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The judgement on the worth of policy initiatives cannot be simply outsourced.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I cannot help thinking that this paradigm of interdisciplinary engagement still has not fulfilled its potential for informing and shaping the broader practice of legal scholarship.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This makes legal scholars crucial agents in the (essentially political) discourse on how changes to the law can be implemented without systemlevel dysfunctions.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Its root is the realisation that lawyers and legal scholars simply cannot ignore the relevant scientific knowledge (or openly contradict scientific evidence) when addressing causation issues.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This paradigm has been present in legal scholarship from effectively the beginning, and its focus on understanding better what is already in the law makes it an unlikely candidate for being a major driver of either doctrinal development in the law or the methodological renewal of legal scholarship.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.1 Understanding Extralegal Origins
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though this pattern of interdisciplinary engagement can have a pervasive impact on the agendas for individual legal scholars, the increased concern with policy challenges (that animates the third paradigm) does not obscure the distinctive character of legal scholarship.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Legal doctrinal scholarship is in a constant need of renewing its arsenal of doctrinal constructs.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As we have seen, the first paradigm revolves around acknowledging the limitations of legal scholarship in making adequate sense of ideas and concepts that came to be integrated into legal materials.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The internal coherence of the doctrinal structures may depend on it.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main reason for this phenomenon was that the emergence of the economic analysis of law made raised the stakes of debates on tort law doctrines and generated controversies about the very point of tort law.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.1 Understanding Extralegal Origins
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Even though its concern with maintaining the integrity, coherence, and rationality of doctrinal structures has some direct policy implications, 52 legal scholarship exhibits remarkable openness and flexibility when it comes to absorbing policy preferences.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [52]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are cases, however, when the engagement between disciplines is characterised more by rivalry and even tension.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two intersect in complex ways, but the analytical distinction remains a sound one -determinative of the character of legal scholarship.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second concerns the plausibility of factual assumptions: are there people in significant numbers who can be described as 'welfare dependant'?”
- Also stated in: § 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design · plain
“The third dimension concerns normative plausibility (i.e. the fit with accepted political and moral values): is proportional representation fairer or a better fit for the democratic ideal than the 'first past the post' system of electing the members of parliament?”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems to me that the other two paradigms I address here have a more direct bearing on the pressing methodological challenges of contemporary legal scholarship.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.1 Understanding Extralegal Origins
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Occasionally, however, the engagement simply cannot be avoided, and it can even become strategically important for legal scholarship to maintain some control over the semantic boundaries of the relevant categories.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It remains crucial for finding the adequate knowledge base for legal scholarship, as well as for enabling legal scholarship to adapt to its ever-changing social and disciplinary environment.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We are talking about judgements of feasibility that put the professional credibility of legal scholars on the line.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Legal scholars' professional credibility depends on academic validation.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Legal scholars cannot rely on a raw political logic in taking a stand on the demands to make changes to the law -without running the risk of looking cynical.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only other disciplines can vouch for the claim that, say, 'indirect discrimination' is a genuine problem that calls for new regulation,foot_2 that a crisis of democracy makes the overhaul of the constitutional mechanisms of popular representation necessary, or that we need more imaginative normative tools to address the human rights aspects of environmental harm.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Other disciplines can provide academic validation for policy claims.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nothing guarantees that the different disciplinary perspectives on them will not end up at least partly incompatible.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interdisciplinary engagement necessitates as well as facilitates this renewal.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In many cases, this raises no serious challenge because the alternative uses of the affected concepts can be contextually separated.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.2 Addressing Frictions between Disciplinary Perspectives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As I have mentioned above, it is indeed more and more typical that contemporary legal scholars build competence in other disciplines along these lines.”
§ Legal Doctrinal Scholarship and Interdisciplinary Engagement > 4.3 Doctrinal Knowledge, Policy Initiatives, and Institutional Design
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The challenges of interdisciplinary engagement are especially revealing about the nature of legal scholarship.
“It is assumed that the challenges of interdisciplinary engagement are particularly revealing about the nature of legal scholarship.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is significant methodological uncertainty about the character of legal doctrinal scholarship.
“It is fair to assume that there is significant methodological uncertainty around the very character of legal doctrinal scholarship.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Law is a normative and institutional social practice that seeks to guide behaviour.
“First, the law is a normative and institutional social practice that seeks to guide behav-”
The paper relies on this without support.
Law is a normative social practice.
“doctrinal knowledge grows in and around normative social practices (like the different incarnations of law or religious practices)”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is a constant flow of extra-legal information into legal procedures and practice-related policy debates that pervasively affects how law's normative materials turn out.
“There is a constant flow of extra-legal information into legal procedures and practice-related policy debates that has a pervasive impact on how the normative materials of law turn out.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Legal scholarship has two analytically distinguishable aspects: dealing with existing legal materials and engaging with challenges of institutional design.
“Above, I distinguished between two aspects of the practice of legal scholarship: dealing with the existing legal materials and engagement with challenges of institutional design.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Legal scholarship has a non-instrumental perspective on law.
“The non-instrumental perspective of legal scholarship would be an insurmountable obstacle to that.”
“Legal scholarship (due to its noninstrumentalist take on law) stands alone among the disciplines with its obvious focus on the latter point.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Legal scholars' professional credibility depends on academic validation.
“We are talking about judgements of feasibility that put the professional credibility of legal scholars on the line.”
“As an academic discipline, legal scholarship needs academic validation for the substantive ideas that it chooses to embed in the doctrinal structure of the existing law.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Other disciplines can provide academic validation for policy claims.
“Only other disciplines can vouch for the claim that, say, 'indirect discrimination' is a genuine problem that calls for new regulation,foot_2 that a crisis of democracy makes the overhaul of the constitutional mechanisms of popular representation necessary, or that we need more imaginative normative tools to address the human rights aspects of environmental harm.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is a natural division of labour between legal scholarship and other disciplines.
“we must accept a natural division of labour here.”
Citations
Cites
Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of the disciplines
Bazerman, C. (1990) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/0889-4906(90)90017-7 · Cited by 1,346
Legal Scholarship: Its Causes and Cure
Tushnet, M. (1981) · The Yale Law Journal · doi:10.2307/795948 · Cited by 93
The Precautionary Principle in EC Health and Environmental Law
SADELEER, N. D. (2006) · European Law Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2006.00313.x · Cited by 70
Samuel, G. B. (2009) · Journal of Law and Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6478.2009.00478.x · Cited by 58
IS LAW REALLY A SOCIAL SCIENCE? A VIEW FROM COMPARATIVE LAW
Samuel, G. B. (2008) · The Cambridge Law Journal · doi:10.1017/s0008197308000378 · Cited by 41
Legal doctrine in crisis: towards a European legal science
Hoecke, M. V., & Ost, F. (1998) · Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1748-121x.1998.tb00013.x · Cited by 22
Is Law Really a Social Science? a view from Comparative Law
Samuel, G. B. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315091891-7 · Cited by 8
Causation and risk in the law of torts: scientific evidence and medicinal product liability
Smith, R. N. (2000) · International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine · doi:10.1097/00124363-200004000-00015 · Cited by 3
Rebels Without a Cause?: Judges, Medical and Scientific Evidence and the Uses of Causation
Mendelson, D., & Freckelton, I. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315260761-14 · Cited by 2
The Cause of Disease and Illness: Medical Views and Uncertainties
Mendelson, D., & Freckelton, I. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315260761-12 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [3]3. E.L. Rubin, 'Law and the Methodolo- gy of Law', Wisconsin Law Review 521, at 521 (1997).
- [5]5. J.M. Smits, 'Redefining Normative Sci- ence: Towards an Argumentative Discipline', in F. Coomans, F. Grün- feld, & M.T. Kamminga (eds.), Methods of Human Rights Research (2009) 45, at 47.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brooman, S. (2017) · Liverpool Law Review · doi:10.1007/s10991-017-9205-7 · Cited by 10
Advancing an Embodied Understanding of Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities
Ferri, D. (2024) · Journal of Human Rights Practice · doi:10.1093/jhuman/huae049 · Cited by 9
Law and Legal Science in the Age of Big Data
Ződi, Z. (2017) · Intersections · doi:10.17356/ieejsp.v3i2.324 · Cited by 7
“How does all of this affect legal science? In the past few years, – as happened more than once in the last century of legal science – it has become one of the leitmotifs of the methodological writings concerning legal science that traditional ‘doctrinal’ scholarship seems to be in a crisis (Bodig, 2015; Dyevre, 2016);…”
BackgroundInterdisciplinarity for Sustainable Business
van der Velden, M., Russell, R., & Sjåfjell, B. (2022) · Strategies for sustainability · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-06924-6_1 · Cited by 3
Pētījumi tiesību zinātnē un starpdisciplinaritāte: īss ieskats pamatjautājumos
Ratniece, L. (2021) · SOCRATES Rīgas Stradiņa universitātes Juridiskās fakultātes elektroniskais juridisko zinātnisko rakstu žurnāls / SOCRATES Rīga Stradiņš University Faculty of Law Electronic Scientific Journal of Law · doi:10.25143/socr.20.2021.2.014-023 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Bodig, M.
- Venue
- Erasmus Law Review
- Publisher
- Koninklijke Boom uitgevers
- Published
- 2015-12
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 43-54
- ISSN
- 2210-2671 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2238001377
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 18.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Erasmus Law Review (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
- RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Studies and Policies
- Social Sciences › Law › Comparative and International Law Studies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
- Keywords
- interdisciplinary engagement, epistemology of law, internalism, policy verification
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-01, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-01 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
