Interdisciplinary synergies in comparative research on constitutional judicial decision-making

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research in comparative constitutional law and politics is often talked about but rarely theorized or practised. And yet, such research is urgently required to meet the complex problems posed by the rise of populist constitutionalism and the endurance of other forms of authoritarian governance. Against this background, this article examines the potential for productive interdisciplinary dialogue between positive political science and legal-doctrinal and normative approaches to constitutional judicial decision-making. While research in this area is founded on a wide range of epistemologies and methods, the article argues, there are at least two areas in which interdisciplinary dialogue might both promote more rigorous research and deliver practical benefits. The first involves greater use of quantitative social science methods in comparative doctrinal research; and the second, the mutual challenging of settled assumptions as between normative constitutional theorists and positive political scientists involved in comparative research on (1) the determinants of judicial behaviour and (2) the link between constitutional judicial decision-making and various non-case outcomes