4 Quantitative Analysis of Reasoned Decisions and Awards

This chapter involves a large-scale, quantitative analysis of judicial decisions and arbitral awards. The chapter begins by describing the methodology used to create the data set and coding criteria before moving on to present demographic and background information on the various decisions and awards so as to lay a foundation for the substantive analysis. Findings from the coding exercise include information generated by a novel paragraph-counting technique as well as a citation count analysis of both legal and factual authorities. The exercise tracks a number of issues addressed in the survey and semi-structured interviews, thereby allowing triangulation of data.

3 Semi-Structured Interviews on Legal Reasoning

This chapter involves a series of semi-structured interviews of judges and arbitrators covering the same types of issues addressed by the survey. The chapter begins with methodological and definitional information before moving to the substantive results from the interviews, which focused not only on what judges and arbitrators do, but why they do it. Topics include use of legal authorities, the use of factual authorities (evidence), the reasoning process, and the drafting process as well as judicial and arbitral education.

2 International Survey on Legal Reasoning

This chapter discusses results from a large-scale, international survey of judges and arbitrators, focusing on the beliefs and behaviors associated with legal reasoning. This study seeks to identify general practices and motivations regarding legal reasoning to determine whether and to what extent conventional wisdom in this field is correct. Many questions in the survey mirror those asked in the semi-structured interviews, which allows a certain amount of validity testing across the two studies. The survey also addresses issues considered in the quantitative (coding) exercise, thereby allowing further triangulation of results.

5 Conclusion

This chapter concludes the analysis by putting the new empirical research discussed earlier in the book into a larger practical and scholarly context. The chapter begins by considering how the empirical data measures up to theoretical studies in this area of law, pulling together select elements from the three research strands (i.e. the international survey, semi-structured interviews, and coding exercise) and focusing on particular issues of interest across the three major areas of comparison (i.e. the judicial–arbitral, domestic–international, and common law–civil law divides). While this summation is not intended to be comprehensive, it nevertheless provides a high-level overview of general research outcomes. Next, the chapter discusses certain unanticipated data that was generated during the course of the study and seeks to situate that information within the academic understanding of legal reasoning. Finally, the focus turns to the various ways that studies in legal reasoning might develop in the future as a result of the research reflected herein.

1 Introduction

This chapter provides an introduction to a new, multi-faceted empirical study on legal reasoning in commercial disputes by describing existing scholarship on legal reasoning as well as best practices in empirical legal studies.. In so doing, the discussion not only provides novel insights into general practices involving legal reasoning but also lays the foundation for further analysis by considering standard assumptions about differences in reasoning arising along the judicial–arbitral, domestic–international, and common law–civil law divides. These assumptions are tested throughout the book to determine whether and to what extent legal reasoning differs according to the nature of the decision-maker, the scope of the dispute or the legal tradition in which the matter is set.