Project description
Bridging the evidence gap in constitutional law
Constitutional law often lacks the necessary empirical foundation, leading to decisions based on abstract principles rather than concrete evidence. This absence of rigorous fact-finding contributes to unconvincing rulings, unintended societal impacts, and claims of judicial bias. Unlike other areas of law, there are few empirical studies on constitutional issues, and most courts and legislatures lack proper procedures for evaluating evidence in such matters. As a result, unverified facts can influence legal decisions. In this context, the ERC-funded EmpiriCon project aims to introduce an evidence-based approach to constitutional law. Weaving a theoretical analysis and a series of multi-method empirical studies, EmpiriCon will develop a framework for a responsible evidence-based decision-making in constitutional law, improving the quality of laws and rulings.
Objective
Constitutional law worldwide suffers from an empirical deficit: although evidence is needed to apply the law to concrete conflicts, constitutional analysis is dominated by high-level value judgments and pays little attention to empirical evidence. Unlike other fields of law, there are almost no empirical studies regarding constitutional controversies, and most courts, legislatures, and executives have no adequate procedures for establishing facts or reviewing evidence in constitutional matters.
The empirical deficit of constitutional law has detrimental consequences. It generates unpersuasive decisions; brings about inadvertent societal consequences; breeds accusations that constitutional decisions are subjective and biased; and lets unvalidated facts influence decisions in the absence of proper procedural safeguards.
EmpiriCon will develop a new approach that offers to rejuvenate constitutional law as an evidence-based field of law. Based on a comprehensive theoretical analysis of the empirical gaps in constitutional law (WP1), six multi-method empirical studies of key constitutional gaps (WP2), and eight survey experiments that examine the implications of rigorous fact-finding for public trust in constitutional decision making (WP3), I will develop a new theoretical and methodological approach (WP4), showing that empirical constitutional law is not only theoretically justified, but also methodologically feasible and concretely valuable. This approach will ground constitutional reasoning in transparent methodology, improve the quality of constitutional decisions, and may even increase public trust.
Simultaneously, the shift to empiricism involves risks, such as data manipulation, and has inherent limitations. I will incorporate the limitations, map out the risks, and propose ways to tackle them. If successful, the project will transform constitutional law, with far reaching implications for scholars, legislatures, executives, courts, and litigants.
Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
This project's classification has been validated by the project's team.
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
This project's classification has been validated by the project's team.
Keywords
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
-
HORIZON.1.1 - European Research Council (ERC)
MAIN PROGRAMME
See all projects funded under this programme
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
HORIZON-ERC - HORIZON ERC Grants
See all projects funded under this funding scheme
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
(opens in new window) ERC-2022-STG
See all projects funded under this callHost institution
Net EU financial contribution. The sum of money that the participant receives, deducted by the EU contribution to its linked third party. It considers the distribution of the EU financial contribution between direct beneficiaries of the project and other types of participants, like third-party participants.
91904 JERUSALEM
Israel
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.