Category Archives: Uncategorized

I am thrilled to announce the publication today of my book, “La décision juridictionnelle: Introduction à la théorie et à l’empirie du droit,” with French publisher Lefebvre Dalloz.

Synthesizing theoretical contributions from behavioral psychology, empirical legal analysis, and even linguistics, this book examines the multifarious factors modulating judicial decision-making. Besides ideology, gender, and cognitive biases, the book considers the often overlooked role of factors such as workload, litigation dynamics, and the broder political environment in which judges operate. Driven by the constant concern to relate theory and empirical evidence, its argument is illustrated with a rich variety of examples: the strategic construction of a directive by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the ideological orientation of judges sitting on the European Court of Human Rights, evidence of susceptibility to various biases from vignette experiments conducted with professional magistrates, and so on.

If you read French, you can order the book (EUR 39) here:

LGDJ: https://www.lgdj.fr/la-decision-juridictionnelle-9782247233281.html

Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/d%C3%A9cision-juridictionnelle-Introduction-th%C3%A9orie-lempirie/dp/2247233287/ref=sr_1_5?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.9WTb4lQiYTusEYW-u3Y1uGrW124NMEmkQIpnwT5NwNiMkcYWU4d8ypqwN8bHy7nNF1xllS_b2Bqb7HWZXgRq_w.UPX4r_Ywgdn1eDZ5d7j3UEZtuBU-M6ahx5Skt_bzC1Y&dib_tag=se&qid=1714645404&refinements=p_27%3AArthur+Dyevre&s=books&sr=1-5

Fnac: https://www.fr.fnac.be/a19616165/Arthur-Dyevre-La-decision-juridictionnelle-Introduction-a-la-theorie-et-a-l-empirie-du-droit

I’m’re thrilled to share our latest research paper now available on SSRN “Law School Training and the Demand for Specialized Law Graduates: Evidence from a Field Experiment,” (with Aurélie Meeus and Wout Vandermeulen). Our study examines the real-world impact of curriculum specialization on the employability of law graduates.
Our research involved a field experiment applying a crossover design with 132 Belgian law firms to understand how specializations in Economic/Business Law and Public Law influence job prospects. Our findings reveal nuanced insights:

• Overall, there is only a mild general preference for graduates with specialization in Economic/Business Law.
• Economic/Business Law specializations enhance attractiveness to a small subset of firms, suggesting alignment with specific industry demands.
• Read the full study here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4808391 to explore how these insights might reshape the approach to legal education and specialization.

How does a collective of judges come to a common decision? A fairly good approximation is the Median Voter Theorem, which predicts that the majority decision will reflect the position of the median judge. According to my recently released Working Paper (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4687112), the median judge on the ICJ has been shifting towards more pro-Western positions in recent years, with French (Abraham), Ugandan (Sebutinde) and Moroccan (Bennouna) judges assigned the highest probability of acting as median. As the world awaits the announcement of the Court’s interim ruling, these findings suggest a tighter outcome than in the Israeli Wall advisory opinion. 

The only International Court of Justice precedent involving Israel is its 2004 advisory opinion on the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories”. Looking at how the mode presented in a fresh Working Paper (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4687112) fits this case, what is most striking is that it was NOT a polarising issue. Instead, all judges, except the US one, came out against Israel. A pattern of isolation similar to that observed in other UN institutions. The correlation with latent support for the Western-led international order — the main geopolitical cleavage on the Court — is also weak.

The embrace of empirical legal studies, a trend that has transformed legal scholarship in the United States and Israel, is now gaining significant traction worldwide. This shift is particularly evident in the study of constitutional rights, where traditional normative and theoretical approaches are being supplemented, and at times challenged, by empirical methods. The trend is not confined to any one region but is a part of a broader, global movement in the legal academy.

Areas like environmental law clearly demonstrate the value of empirical methods. Here, the impact of legislation is directly observable and quantifiable, from emission reductions to improvements in wildlife diversity. This measurable approach is crucial, offering a concrete assessment of policy efficacy that complements normative legal discussions.

The Complex World of Constitutional Rights Law

In contrast, constitutional rights law presents unique challenges for empirical analysis. The nature of rights, varying widely across different times and jurisdictions, and the often aspirational language used in legal provisions, adds layers of complexity to empirical study. How can the effectiveness of constitutional rights be measured in tangible terms?

Despite these hurdles, recent empirical studies have made significant inroads. Starting in the late 1990s, researchers began examining the impact of international human rights treaties, navigating through complex methodological landscapes. This marked the beginning of a challenging yet transformative journey in applying quantitative methods to constitutional rights law.

“How Constitutional Rights Matter”: A Seminal Contribution

In this context, the monograph How Constitutional Rights Matter (OUP, 2020) by Adam Chilton and Mila Versteeg, which I reviewed for the European Constitutional Law Review, stands as a landmark. This work not only proves the feasibility of empirical methods in the realm of constitutional rights but also sheds light on how these methods can enhance our understanding of the actual impact of constitutional rights globally. By offering quantifiable insights into the effect of constitutional rights provisions on rights violations, it challenges the long-held skepticism towards empirical legal studies.

How Constitutional Rights Matter is part of a broad empirical turn in comparative constitutional law addressing the diffusion of constitutional practices, institutions and rights. Some of the accumulated work has come in the form of articles in law and social science journals. Some has come in the form of monographs. The Endurance of National Constitutions by Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg and James Melton, drawing on the most comprehensive comparative law database ever built, has a been a major milestone, ushering in a decade of increasingly ambitious empirical work. Impressive as it was at the time, covering constitutional events worldwide over two centuries, The Endurance of Constitutions also suffered from methodological weaknesses, although these appeared only in retrospect as the credibility revolution spread to empirical comparative law. With its comprehensive mixed-method treatment, How Constitutional Rights Matter certainly sets the methodological bar higher and will define the standard against which empirical constitutional law will be assessed in the years to come.

Human rights revolutions are fought in poetry. But understanding what bills of rights are able to achieve requires a sober mind and lucid prose. Currently, How Constitutional Rights Matter is the most accomplished monograph on the reality of constitutional rights.

I just dropped an article in European Politics and Society titled “EU Judicial Behaviour Research: A Look Back and a Look Ahead,” about European Union courts have been studied over the last 30 years.

We’ve learned a ton about the Court of Justice and how it works with local courts and people in court cases. But it is important to point out the not-so-great parts:

1. Parochial tendency: Turns out, this research field has been rather stuck in its own bubble, not really using new theories from other places and literatures.
2. Old School Methods: Methodology is often outdated and not really keeping up with how we need to prove things — not least causation — in research today.
3. Data, Where You At?: There’s also this issue of not having data, especially on what national courts are up to when they’re not dealing with the big EU Court within the preliminary ruling procedure.

Game Plan for the Future

I suggest some ideas to bring the field forward:

• Mixing Theories: Researchers should borrow more from judicial behaviour research in other settings, especially theoretical insights. This could really help the field.
• Getting Smarter Research Designs: Time to get creative and use experimental and quasi-experimental methods to make empirical findings more credible.
• Tech to the Rescue: It’s time to embrace new tech, webcrawling and Natural Language Processing (NLP) — which have been making great strides — to dig up new info and insights at scale.

In short, it’s a call to action for shaking things up in EU judicial research.

Does fasting during Ramadan influence the decisions of Muslim judges? I was interviewed by Belgian newspaper De Standaard about a study just published in Nature Human Behaviour.

In the great chess game of French politics, tomorrow’s parliamentary elections could set the stage for an unexpected king’s gambit. Emmanuel Macron, fresh from the laurels of re-election, hopes to consolidate his power with a parliamentary majority. Yet, it’s Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leading an eclectic coalition of the Greens and the left, who’s making the seismic waves.

In an anecdote that captures the fervour of this political moment, I had a group of Mélenchon enthusiasts – aware of my French roots – pitch camp at my Brussels doorstep last night. Their mission? To sway the unswayed for what could be a stunning upset. Should they succeed, Macron, a centrist by temperament, may find himself in a coalition with Mélenchon, a figure who embodies the antithesis of his political ethos.

The potential cohabitation of these two starkly different figures is not just a political curiosity. It’s a study in contrasts: Macron, the champion of liberal economic policies, against Mélenchon, the leftist stalwart with a flair for the dramatic. For Mélenchon, this is the culmination of a long political journey. For Macron, it’s an unpalatable scenario, but not one devoid of strategic advantage.

Consider the economic backdrop: Mélenchon ascends with promises of expansive public spending and progressive economic reforms in a time of inflationary pressures and economic uncertainty. His ambitious agenda – lowering retirement age, freezing prices on necessities – might play well in the gallery but faces the harsh realities of a constrained fiscal space and the specter of economic slowdown. Remember, governments rarely gain popularity when navigating economic headwinds.

Mélenchon, with his penchant for grandiosity, risks overpromising in an environment where delivering might be structurally constrained. This disconnect between populist rhetoric and economic feasibility is not new in French politics, but it’s a tightrope that Mélenchon will have to walk with exceptional skill.

Macron, meanwhile, retains the presidency’s robust control over foreign policy. He also wields the constitutional power to dissolve the National Assembly and call for new elections – a tool used effectively in the past by French presidents to recalibrate the political landscape in their favour.

Entering his second term, Macron’s political capital is not in abundant supply. Even with a parliamentary majority, the economic downturn will likely erode his popularity further. Yet, political history offers a counterintuitive insight: in periods of cohabitation, it’s often the prime minister who bears the brunt of public dissatisfaction with economic conditions. French voters, not known for their patience, may quickly grow disillusioned with Mélenchon’s inability to match rhetoric with results.

In essence, a year or so of cohabitation might be a strategic retreat for Macron, allowing him to regroup and potentially emerge stronger against a background of unfulfilled promises and economic stagnation under Mélenchon’s watch.

Writing scientific papers is tough and convincing a top academic journal to publish your work is even tougher. Is there a single academic who has never felt a pinch of discouragement upon seeing her article rejected? An interesting question is how we react to this sort of negative feedback: Do we take the resolve to do better and revise our work? Or do we just give up? In a paper with Nicolas Lampach and Monika Glavina published in the Journal of Law & Courts, we asked this question about courts submitting references to the European Court of Justice. Submitting courts, even those inexperienced with the preliminary ruling mechanism, don’t appear to be chilled by negative feedback. Better still: they seem to learn from the experience and upgrade the quality of their references.