Evidence-Based Jurisprudence. Methods and Epistemic Value of Empirical Legal Research, With Examples From Corporate Law

法律需要事实知识。为了在一个复杂和日益相互关联的社会中制定和适用一般规则，法律依赖于关于因果关系的可靠经验知识。到目前为止，德国法学家倾向于援引法律的制定法的无定形经验饱和作为可概括的经验判断的来源。本书认为，虽然大量的轶事经验肯定是有用的，但它往往会使法学家误入歧途。因此，本书继续追问，法律的科学和法律的实践（法理学）如何以系统的、基于规则的方式来适应经验主义的见解，将其有效地用于典型的法律的问题。通过解释医学，的做法，基础决定的证据，将其转移到法理学，并将它们整合成一个连贯的概念，这本书首次调整了定量实证研究的方法与法学家的规范认识论。它为调整实证研究结果制定了实用的经验规则，这有助于法学家欣赏个别研究，并承认实证研究方法的局限性。从这一分析中得出的一个重要结论是，法学家应该少依赖于说明性的初步研究，而应该依赖于研究综合和Meta分析。在对德国和美国的经验公司法研究状况进行系统梳理后，本文以一个与高管薪酬规则有关的问题为例，概述了不同的经验方法，并讨论了它们各自的潜力和局限性。本书最后深入分析了公司法中的另一个主题，即“合议原则”。这一原则是使用法律的理论分析提出的，在20个司法管辖区的比较中进行了国际追踪，并最终使用基于证据的法学工具进行了分析。这一分析质疑了以合议原则为基础的关于人类决策行为的某些假设，因此，基于证据的法学可以被理解为一个跨学科的概念，它允许系统地规范对经验知识的追求，从而使其能够用于实践目的。它有助于有意识地批判性地反思法律与现实的关系，并从长远来看改善法律的决策的基础。

Law requires factual knowledge. In order to set and apply general rules in a complex and increasingly interconnected society, the law depends on reliable empirical knowledge about causes and effects. Thus far, German jurists tend to invoke the ¿amorphous experiential saturation¿ of legal statutes as a source of generalizable ¿empirical judgments¿. The present book argues that while a wealth of anecdotal experience is certainly useful, it often leads jurists astray. It thus goes on to ask how legal science and legal practice (jurisprudence) can adapt empirical insights in a systematic and rule-based fashion, to use them productively for typical legal issues.To answer this question, the book seeks inspiration in other practical disciplines that had to bridge into basic science, turning especially to medicine. By explaining medicine¿s practice of ¿basing¿ decisions on evidence, transferring it to jurisprudence and integrating them into a coherent concept, the book for the first time aligns the methods of quantitative empirical research with jurists¿ normative epistemology. It develops practical rules of thumb for adapting empirical findings, which help jurists to appreciate individual studies and to acknowledge the limits of empirical research methodology. An important conclusion from this analysis is that jurists ought to rely less on illustrative primary studies, but instead on research syntheses and meta analyses.This method of adapting empirical findings is illustrated by specific examples from corporate law. After systematizing the state of empirical corporate law research in Germany and the US, one question relating to the rules on executive remuneration is used to outline different empirical approaches and to discuss their respective potentials and limits. The book concludes with an in-depth analysis of another subject known in corporate law as the ¿collegiality principle¿. This principle is laid out using legal doctrinal analysis, traced internationally in a comparison of twenty jurisdictions and eventually analysed using the instruments of ¿evidence-based jurisprudence¿. This analysis calls into doubt some of the as - sumptions about human decision-making behavior which underlie the collegiality principle.Evidence-based jurisprudence may therefore be understood as a transdisciplinary concept which allows systematically to discipline the quest for empirical knowledge, thus enabling its use for practical purposes. It helps to consciously and critically reflect on the law¿s relationship with reality, and to improve the bedrock of legal decision-making in the long run.