No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Qualitative content analysis for the study of legal instruments. Unraveling the concept of collective reparations in legal and quasi-legal institutions
Abstract
This article proposes the use of a qualitative content analysis, a non-legal research method, in combination with doctrinal research. Qualitative content analysis is close to doctrinal research, yet it consists of a more systematic methodology with set rules for the selection, coding and analysis of the legal texts. Therefore, it is suitable for descriptive legal research that deals with a high number of legal documents, such as case law. In this article, the qualitative content analysis will be introduced, with special attention to its methodology, its relation to traditional doctrinal research and its strengths and weaknesses. In addition, the methodology will be discussed in relation to my own PhD research; a systematic analysis of the development and interpretation of collective reparations in different international, regional and national courts and commissions that deal with gross human rights and serious humanitarian law violations.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Under international law, it is uncontested that the victims of gross and systematic human rights violations have the right to reparation. International tribunals have granted collective reparations as the most appropriate kind of reparation for these violations. This has been re-affirmed by the recent decision on reparations of the International Criminal Court in the Lubanga case. Since gross and systematic human rights violations involve large numbers of victims, collective reparations seem to be appropriate as they seek to provide redress to groups and communities. Yet, while there is a trend of international tribunals adjudicating gross human rights violations resorting to collective reparations, these reparations face numerous ambiguities such as the lack of a single definition and clear guidelines for the identification of their beneficiaries. This article examines the experience of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, pioneer of collective reparations, in the identification of beneficiaries of gross and systematic human rights violations.
Despite the interdisciplinary bent of legal scholars, the academy has yet to identify an empirical methodology that is uniquely its own. We propose that one standard social science technique - content analysis - could form the basis for an empirical methodology that is uniquely legal. It holds the potential for bringing social science rigor to our empirical understanding of caselaw, and therefore for creating what is distinctively a legal form of empiricism. To explore this potential, we collected all 122 examples we could find that use content analysis to study judicial opinions, and coded them for pertinent features. Legal scholars began to code and count cases decades ago, but use of this method did not accelerate until about 15 years ago. Most applications are home-grown, with no effort to draw on established social science techniques. To provide methodological guidance, we survey the questions that legal scholars have tried to answer through content analysis, and use that experience to generalize about the strengths and weaknesses of the technique compared with conventional interpretive legal methods. The epistemological roots of content analysis lie in legal realism. Any question that a lawyer might ask about what courts say or do can be studied more objectively using one of the four distinct components of content analysis: 1) replicable selection of cases; 2) objective coding of cases; 3) counting case contents for descriptive purposes; or 4) statistical analysis of case coding. Each of these components contributes something of unique epistemological value to legal research, yet at each of these four stages, some legal scholars have objected to the technique. The most effective response is to recognize that content analysis does not occupy the same epistemological ground as conventional legal scholarship. Instead, each method renders different kinds of insights that complement each other, so that, together, the two approaches to understanding caselaw are more powerful that either alone. Content analysis is best used when each decision should receive equal weight, that is, when it is appropriate to regard the content of opinions as generic data. Scholars have found that it is especially useful in studies that question or debunk conventional legal wisdom. Content analysis also holds promise in the study of the connections between judicial opinions and other parts of the social, political, or economic landscape. The strongest application is when the subject of study is simply the behavior of judges in writing opinions or deciding cases. Then, content analysis combines the analytical skills of the lawyer with the power of science that comes from articulated and replicable methods. However, analyzing the cause-and-effect relationship between the outcome of cases and the legally relevant factors presented by judges to justify their decisions raises a serious circularity problem. Therefore, content analysis is not an especially good tool for helping lawyers to predict the outcome of cases based on real-world facts. This article also provides guidance on the best practices for using this research method. We identify techniques that meet standards of social science rigor and account for the practical needs of legal researchers. These techniques include methods for case sampling, coder training, reliability testing, and statistical analysis. It is not necessary to practice this method profitably only at its highest level. Instead, we show that valuable uses can be made even by those who are largely innumerate.
In this evaluation of the international legal standing of the right to reparation and its practical implementation at the national level, Christine Evans outlines State responsibility and examines the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the Articles on State Responsibility of the International Law Commission and the convergence of norms in different branches of international law, notably human rights law, humanitarian law and international criminal law. Case studies of countries in which the United Nations has played a significant role in peace negotiations and post-conflict processes allow her to analyse to what extent transitional justice measures have promoted State responsibility for reparations, interacted with human rights mechanisms and prompted subsequent elaboration of domestic legislation and reparations policies. In conclusion, she argues for an emerging customary right for individuals to receive reparations for serious violations of human rights and a corresponding responsibility of States.
- Schrama
Schrama, Utrecht Law Review (7) 2011, p. 152.
Bibliography
Baldwin & Davis 2012
- A Bryman
A. Bryman, Social Research Methods, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2012.
Capone 2013
Using Software in Qualitative Analysis' in: U. Flick, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis
- G Gibbs
G. Gibbs, 'Using Software in Qualitative Analysis' in: U. Flick, The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Data Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications 2014, p. 277-294.