Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 172Comparative and International Law StudiesLegal Studies and PoliciesQualitative Comparative Analysis Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 52 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Methodology of Comparative Legal Research

Open access
Van Hoecke, Mark·2015·Recht en Methode in onderzoek en onderwijs
DOI 10.5553/rem/.000010
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Methodology of Comparative Legal Research: In this paper, an attempt is made to work out a methodology for comparative legal research, which goes beyond the ‘functional method’ or methodological scepticism. The starting point is the idea that we need a ‘toolbox’, not a fixed methodological road map, and that a lot of published, but largely unnoticed, research outside rule and case oriented comparative law offers varying approaches, which could usefully be applied in comparative research. Six methods have been identified: the functional method, the structural one, the analytical one, the law-in-context method, the historical method, and the common core method. Basically, it is the aim of the research and the research question that will determine which methods could be useful. Moreover, different methods may be combined, as they are complementary and not mutually exclusive.This paper focuses on scholarly comparative legal research, not on the use of foreign law by legislators or courts, but, of course, the methodological questions and answers will largely overlap.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5553/rem/.000010

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

133 Own interpretation · 29 Sources not found · 19 No full text of the sources · 4 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Own result · accuracy not yet measured

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 47
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 122

Create a free account to see these claims.

Create a free account to see these assumptions.

45 more claims

Create a free account to see all 189 claims and every source verdict.

See all claims — free account

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [6]6. Atiyah & Summers 1987 P.S. Atiyah & R.S.Summers, Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law, Oxford: Clar- endon Press 1987.
  2. [31]31. R. Pound, 'What May We Expect from Comparative Law?', American Bar Association Journal 1936-22, p. 56-60.
  3. [35]35. R. Reed, 'Foreign Precedents and Judicial Reasoning: The American Debate and Brit- ish Practice', Law Quarterly Review 2008, p. 253-273.

Cited by

See all 172

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Van Hoecke, M.
Venue
Recht en Methode in onderzoek en onderwijs
Publisher
Koninklijke Boom uitgevers
Published
2015-12
ISSN
2212-2508 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5553/rem/.000010
OpenAlex
W2304212401
Cited by
172
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6
FWCI
50.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Recht en Methode in onderzoek en onderwijs (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Comparative and International Law Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Studies and Policies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Keywords
functional methods, structural method, analytical methods, historical method, research questions

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).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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