In an interesting article Thomas Ulen proposes the following: "The right can be a science, empirically testable hypotheses and scientific method of study?
From my point of view, yes, and morally, it should be. For example, the law of proof (evidence) is greatly enriched with a scientifically based methodology that allows us to investigate and prove. I consider the theoretical study of what are the best means to prove the truth of a fact does not depend on each country. This must be the same in all countries. However, each State may establish the limits under which they may conduct investigations and to demonstrate the truth of a fact, but a different theme, which borders more with the policy and, perhaps, moral philosophy.
From my point of view, yes, and morally, it should be. For example, the law of proof (evidence) is greatly enriched with a scientifically based methodology that allows us to investigate and prove. I consider the theoretical study of what are the best means to prove the truth of a fact does not depend on each country. This must be the same in all countries. However, each State may establish the limits under which they may conduct investigations and to demonstrate the truth of a fact, but a different theme, which borders more with the policy and, perhaps, moral philosophy.
On the other hand, it must be recognized if you can set certain criteria for determining whether a particular idea has been a contribution to the law, either for its innovation, it allows us to better understand the operation of law, among other criteria. For example, few would doubt that the Constitutional Courts whose idea came from Kelsen is not a great idea. Also on the pyramid Kelsen and legal sources.
Other great ideas are:
(i) the fuzzy control and its popularization by the Judge Marshall
(ii) the criteria established by Calabresi to evaluate the performance of the tort system;
(iii) and Wigmore chart method for evaluating evidence of a case is really a scientific attempt to assess the evidence for a case, which allows to rationalize and objectify the analysis of the facts and evidence in a case. Twinning in this area would improve it and make it more affordable to common lawyers.
(iv) Alchourron and Bulygin for his book of legal logic is really special and meant a real advance in a more methodical and scientific study of law.
can be a lot more, but these are the ones that come to mind.
This is the article Ulen: Nobel Prize in Legal Science: Theory, Empirical Work, and the Scientific Method in the Study of Law
Will there ever a Nobel Prize in law? I use this question as a framework for discussing the current state of legal doctrine and its tendency to become more scientific. I discuss the meaning of the term "science" and the scientific method to summarize the various theories that have developed over time to verify, modify or reject the scientific paradigms. Next, I examine whether the study of law is a science. All sciences share a core belief about it class of phenomena and agree on methods to establish the validity of claims about these phenomena. This allows the study of crime and the spread of information about the field of legal phenomena.
Most scholars believe that this description of science does not apply and, more importantly, could not apply the law. On the contrary, they argue that their field of study is inherently local, both by geography and subject. Therefore, an academic who studies the liability regime in Moldova believe that the study of the system should be completely different from the tort system de Laos.
y aquí continúa el abstract en inglés:
I make three claims. First, I argue that there is no inherent reason why law cannot be scientific. There is no inherent reason within law why there cannot be a transnational theoretical core about, say, tort liability of which each particular jurisdiction's instantiation is but an example. I draw the analogy to economics in which there is a single microeconomic theory of individual and group decisionmaking that instantiates into different national and regional economies, as dictated by different histories, social and governmental organization, resource endowments, and personal and group preferences. Second, I argue that law seems to be in the process of developing a transnational theory of organizations, consensual agreements, liability regimes, and more and that law and economics is currently (but not necessarily) the source of that theoretical core. I give examples of four empirical studies of legal issues that illustrate these trends. The astonishing aspect of the first three of these studies is that although they make empirical claims that question widely held beliefs about what the law in action really is, there has been no apparent alteration in what we teach law students in response to these empirical claims. By contrast, the response to Professor Ellickson's remarkable empirical study of the Coase Theorem in Shasta County, California, has been a dramatic alteration in the profession's belief about the Coase Theorem and the centrality of law in affecting behavior - precisely the reaction one would expect in a science in which theory and empirical work are cognizant of and responsive to one another. Third, I believe that this trend toward a more scientific study of law has been greatly spurred by law and economics, whose impact on legal scholarship has been profound in the United States, if not elsewhere.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=419823
Will there ever a Nobel Prize in law? I use this question as a framework for discussing the current state of legal doctrine and its tendency to become more scientific. I discuss the meaning of the term "science" and the scientific method to summarize the various theories that have developed over time to verify, modify or reject the scientific paradigms. Next, I examine whether the study of law is a science. All sciences share a core belief about it class of phenomena and agree on methods to establish the validity of claims about these phenomena. This allows the study of crime and the spread of information about the field of legal phenomena.
Most scholars believe that this description of science does not apply and, more importantly, could not apply the law. On the contrary, they argue that their field of study is inherently local, both by geography and subject. Therefore, an academic who studies the liability regime in Moldova believe that the study of the system should be completely different from the tort system de Laos.
y aquí continúa el abstract en inglés:
I make three claims. First, I argue that there is no inherent reason why law cannot be scientific. There is no inherent reason within law why there cannot be a transnational theoretical core about, say, tort liability of which each particular jurisdiction's instantiation is but an example. I draw the analogy to economics in which there is a single microeconomic theory of individual and group decisionmaking that instantiates into different national and regional economies, as dictated by different histories, social and governmental organization, resource endowments, and personal and group preferences. Second, I argue that law seems to be in the process of developing a transnational theory of organizations, consensual agreements, liability regimes, and more and that law and economics is currently (but not necessarily) the source of that theoretical core. I give examples of four empirical studies of legal issues that illustrate these trends. The astonishing aspect of the first three of these studies is that although they make empirical claims that question widely held beliefs about what the law in action really is, there has been no apparent alteration in what we teach law students in response to these empirical claims. By contrast, the response to Professor Ellickson's remarkable empirical study of the Coase Theorem in Shasta County, California, has been a dramatic alteration in the profession's belief about the Coase Theorem and the centrality of law in affecting behavior - precisely the reaction one would expect in a science in which theory and empirical work are cognizant of and responsive to one another. Third, I believe that this trend toward a more scientific study of law has been greatly spurred by law and economics, whose impact on legal scholarship has been profound in the United States, if not elsewhere.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=419823
También ver los siguientes links:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/10/09/should-there-be-a-nobel-prize-in-law/
http://saberderecho.blogspot.com/2007/10/en-torno-la-idea-de-un-premio-nobel-de.html
http://saberderecho.blogspot.com/2007/10/en-torno-la-idea-de-un-premio-nobel-de.html
