Is Every Law for Everyone? Assessing Access to National Legislation through Official Legal Databases around the World.

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1093/ojls/gqac032
Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher, Hanjo Hamann
{"title":"Is Every Law for Everyone? Assessing Access to National Legislation through Official Legal Databases around the World.","authors":"Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher,&nbsp;Hanjo Hamann","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqac032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Countries all over the world document their statutory law in official legal databases (OLD), but the extent to which these provide effective access to (statutory) law remains unexamined. Ideally, an OLD should be (i) provided online and free for all without requiring registration or payment, (ii) searchable with regard to statutes' titles, (iii) searchable with regard to the full texts of statutes, (iv) provided in a reusable text-based format and (v) comprehensive in its coverage of at least the laws currently in force. To highlight the nature of OLDs as consumer products, we borrow a term from business operations research and refer to a database fulfilling these basic criteria as a 'minimum viable' OLD. We survey 204 states and jurisdictions to assess how far their country-level OLDs adhere to the minimum viability standard. We find that only 48% of them do; 12% of states do not seem to offer any online OLD at all; and a further 40% of countries offer legal databases that lack at least one of the criteria listed above. The quality of legal access is associated with geographical distribution (with Europe faring the best), economic development and a population's overall Internet usage. The results suggest that comparative legal research faces considerable hurdles when dealing with the Global South; that metadata-enriched digitalisation of legal corpora still remains a desideratum for at least half the world; and that the inaccessibility of law may carry high costs for legal practitioners and the wider public.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"43 2","pages":"298-321"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10243928/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqac032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Countries all over the world document their statutory law in official legal databases (OLD), but the extent to which these provide effective access to (statutory) law remains unexamined. Ideally, an OLD should be (i) provided online and free for all without requiring registration or payment, (ii) searchable with regard to statutes' titles, (iii) searchable with regard to the full texts of statutes, (iv) provided in a reusable text-based format and (v) comprehensive in its coverage of at least the laws currently in force. To highlight the nature of OLDs as consumer products, we borrow a term from business operations research and refer to a database fulfilling these basic criteria as a 'minimum viable' OLD. We survey 204 states and jurisdictions to assess how far their country-level OLDs adhere to the minimum viability standard. We find that only 48% of them do; 12% of states do not seem to offer any online OLD at all; and a further 40% of countries offer legal databases that lack at least one of the criteria listed above. The quality of legal access is associated with geographical distribution (with Europe faring the best), economic development and a population's overall Internet usage. The results suggest that comparative legal research faces considerable hurdles when dealing with the Global South; that metadata-enriched digitalisation of legal corpora still remains a desideratum for at least half the world; and that the inaccessibility of law may carry high costs for legal practitioners and the wider public.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
每条法律都适用于每个人吗?评估通过世界各地的官方法律数据库获取国家立法的情况。
世界各国在官方法律数据库(OLD)中记录其成文法,但这些数据库在多大程度上提供了获取(成文法)法律的有效途径仍未得到审查。理想情况下,旧的应该是(i)提供在线和免费为所有人,不需要注册或付款,(ii)可搜索的关于法规的标题,(iii)可搜索的关于法规的全文,(iv)以可重复使用的文本为基础的格式提供,(v)全面的覆盖至少目前有效的法律。为了突出OLD作为消费产品的本质,我们借用了商业运营研究中的一个术语,并将满足这些基本标准的数据库称为“最小可行”OLD。我们调查了204个州和司法管辖区,以评估他们的国家级养老保险在多大程度上遵守了最低生存能力标准。我们发现只有48%的人这样做;12%的州似乎根本不提供任何在线养老服务;另有40%的国家提供的法律数据库至少缺乏上述标准中的一项。合法访问的质量与地理分布(欧洲表现最好)、经济发展和人口的总体互联网使用情况有关。结果表明,比较法律研究在处理全球南方问题时面临相当大的障碍;元数据丰富的法律语料库数字化仍然是世界上至少一半国家的愿望;法律的难以获取可能会给法律从业人员和广大公众带来高昂的成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Oxford Journal of Legal Studies is published on behalf of the Faculty of Law in the University of Oxford. It is designed to encourage interest in all matters relating to law, with an emphasis on matters of theory and on broad issues arising from the relationship of law to other disciplines. No topic of legal interest is excluded from consideration. In addition to traditional questions of legal interest, the following are all within the purview of the journal: comparative and international law, the law of the European Community, legal history and philosophy, and interdisciplinary material in areas of relevance.
期刊最新文献
Ships of State and Empty Vessels: Critical Reflections on ‘Territorial Status in International Law’ Forum Marketing in International Commercial Courts? Corporate Purpose Swings as a Social, Atheoretical Process: Will the Pendulum Break? Applying Laws Across Time: Disentangling the ‘Always Speaking’ Principles ‘Hard AI Crime’: The Deterrence Turn
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1