Modelling in the Digital Age: Foreign Countries Experience
Abstract
The author analyzes modelling as a method of research inadequately developed in domestic legal studies yet widespread in the United Kingdom and the United States for that purpose. It proves a considerable heuristic potential of modelling for legal science in the context of digital change, with legal regulation based on predicting and assessing the implications and risks of rule-making as a substitute for reactive approach. It is pointed out a legal system analysis can be well-served not only by realistic models based on empirical data, but also by abstract semantic models employing the idealization method and deliberate distortion of simulated system’s qualities. The article identifies core methodological issues to be addressed for an adequate choice of models relevant to the specific research objective. It analyzes the typology of scientific models proposed by R. Frigg and S. Hartmann based on the target object’s representation type and justifies its applicability to legal studies for analysis of constraints of specific legal system models and their construction principles. The essential types of scientific models and their conceptual features are showcased by key papers of modern British and American legal science, with a focus on those widespread in analytical jurisprudence for building comprehensive theory of law and order. These include analogical models (H. Hart, R. Dworkin) designed to analyze the essential qualities of the legal system; idealized models (J. Austin, H. Kelsen) disregarding exogenous social factors that obstruct an analysis of law, and toy models (J. Bentham, L. Fuller) which use deliberately false system assumptions and exaggerate its specific qualities to analyze theoretic foundations. It is noted that modelling is crucial for analytical philosophy to identify essential qualities of law and reveal the internal logic of normative systems. While for each model type under study the article identifies methodological constraints inherent in interpretation of findings, it is concluded that such constraints should be treated with care and that methodological design is crucial for theoretic studies of law.
References
Austin J. (2022) The Province of Jurisprudence Determined: Lectures Course on the Philosophy of Positive Law. Part 1. Saint Petersburg: Aleteya Publishers, 472 p. (in Russ.)
Batterman R.W., Rice C.C. (2014) Minimal Model Explanations. Philosophy of Science, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 349–376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/676677
Becker G.S. (1968) Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy, 1968, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 169–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/259394
Bentham J. (1995) The Panopticon Writings. New York: Verso Publishers, 158 p.
Bondarchuk I.V., Strelnikova I.Yu. et al. (2022) Digitization of Rulemaking Activities in the Context of Information Society. Legal Issues in the Digital Age, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 28–46 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2022.3.28.46
Dahl M. (2024) Chain Novel, or Markov Chain? Estimating the Authority of US Supreme Court Case Law. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 861–898. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12401
Dworkin R. (2020) Law’s Empire. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Press, 592 p. (in Russ.)
Flek L. (1999) The Emergence and Evolution of Scientific Fact: Introduction to the Thinking Theory and Thinking Team. Moscow: Idea-Press, 220 p. (in Russ.)
Foucault M. (1999) Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. Moscow: Ad Marginem, 480 p. (in Russ.)
Friedman M. (1974) Explanation and Scientific Understanding. The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 5–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2024924
Frigg R., Hartmann S. (2024) Models in Science. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford (Cal.): Stanford University Press. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/ (accessed: 25.02.2025)
Fuller L.L. (2019) Morality of Law. Moscow–Chelyabinsk: Sotcium, 308 p. (in Russ.)
Gibbard A., Varian H.R. (1978) The Economic Models. Journal of Philosophy, vol. 75, no. 11, pp. 664–677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil1978751111
Hart H.L.A. (2007) The Concept of Law. Saint Petersburg: University Press, 302 p. (in Russ.)
Isakov V.B. (2022) Graphic Language in Law. Legal Issues in the Digital Age, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 47–67 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2022.3.47.67
Ismael J. (2016) A Philosopher of Science Looks at Idealization in Political Theory. Social Philosophy and Policy, vol. 33, no. 1–2, pp. 11–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505251600039X
Kelsen H. (2015) Pure Theory of Law. Saint Petersburg: Alef-Press, 542 p. (in Russ.)
Kharitonova Yu.S., Savina V.S. et al. (2021) Artificial intelligence algorithmic bias: issues of ethics and law. Vestnik Permskogo gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Pravo=Bulletin of Perm State University. Legal Sciences, no. 53, pp. 488–515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/1995-4190-2021-53-488-515
Kosov M.E. (2019) LegalTech Market: Overview and Development Prospects. Mezhdunarodny zhurnal grazhdanskogo i torgovogo prava=International Journal of Civil and Commercial Law, no. 2, pp. 19–29 (in Russ.)
Levanskiy V.A. (1986) Modelling in Social and Legal Studies. Moscow: Nauka Publishers, 157 p. (in Russ.)
Lindquist S.A., Cross F.B. (2005) Empirically Testing Dworkin’s Chain Novel Theory: Studying the Path of Precedent. New York University Law Review, vol. 80, pp. 1156–1206. https://nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-80-number-4/empirically-testing-dworkins-chain-novel-theory-studying-the-path-of-precedent/
Macedo R.P. (2016) On How Law is Not Like Chess. Dworkin and the Theory of Conceptual Types. In: Democratizing Constitutional Law: Perspectives on Legal Theory and Legitimacy of Constitutionalism. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 293–324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28371-5_14
Marmor A. (2006) How Law is Like Chess. Legal Theory, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 347–371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325206070121
Morrison M., Morgan M.S. (1999) Models as Mediating Instruments. Models as Mediators. Perspectives on Natural and Social Science. New York — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511660108.003
Pletnikov V.S. (2016) The Concept and Types of Models in Modern Domestic Jurisprudence: a Study in the Legal Theory. Antinomii, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 121–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17506/ryipl.2016.2.121135
Posner R.A. (1993) Gary Becker’s Contributions to Law and Economics. The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 211–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/468163
Prigon M.N. (2021) Methods of Legal Science and other Sciences for the Mathematical Modelling of Social Relations in the Public Law Sphere. Leningradsky yuridicheskiy zhurnal=Leningrad Judicial Journal, no. 3, pp. 34–49 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.35231/18136230_2021_3_34
Rothenberg J. (1989) The Nature of Modeling. In: Artificial Intelligence, Simulation, and Modeling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 75–92. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2007/N3027.pdf
Salygin E.N. (2013) Modelling in Law: Challenges and Prospects. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki=Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, no. 3, pp. 12–35 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2013.3.12.35
Shaoxue J. (2023) Artificial Intelligence Governance and China’s Experience under the Community of Common Destiny for Mankind Concept. Legal Issues in the Digital Age, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 81–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2023.3.81.96
Vinogradov V.A., Larichev A.A. (2022) The Index of Ethicality of the Law as an Applied Tool for Assessing the Correlation between Law and Morality Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki=Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 4–23 (in Russ.) https://law-journal.hse.ru/article/view/19987
Vinogradov V.A., Larichev A.A. (2023) Ethics and Law: Balance and Mechanisms of Mutual Impact. Moscow: Prospekt Publishers, pp. 12–28 (in Russ.)
Von Benda-Beckmann K. (1981) Forum Shopping and Shopping Forums: Dispute Processing in a Minangkabau Village in West Sumatra. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, vol. 13, no. 19, pp. 117–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.1981.10756260
Copyright (c) 2025 Vinogradov S.V.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the Licensing, Copyright, Open Access and Repository Policy.
