Empirical research in comparative constitutional law: The cool kid on the block or all smoke and mirrors?

Abstract

In recent years, we have observed an explosion of empirical research in the field of comparative constitutional law. This contribution seeks to evaluate the current state of affairs. We analyze select studies from four different areas: The consequences of and the reasons for constitutional design choices, as well as the diffusion and the effectiveness of constitutional rights. We find that the empirical identification strategies of many of the analyzed studies have significant weaknesses, and inspire only limited confidence in their results. Nevertheless, we argue that empirical research in comparative constitutional law is of fundamental importance. It not only draws our attention to issues that would otherwise elude our view, but also gives us a chance to refine the methodology in order to develop better strategies to answer some of the decisive questions preoccupying comparative constitutional law scholarship.