KLE SOCIETY’S LAW COLLEGE, BENGALURU

EXPLORING COMPARATIVE JUDICIAL

BEHAVIOR THROUGH NETWORK ANALYSIS

AUTHOR: MOHAMED SALMAN ASHIF

SRN: 03FL23BLL069

CO. AUTHOR: NITHIN VEERESH

SRN: 03FL23BLL074
Abstract:

This article delves into the realm of comparative judicial behavior using network
analysis, a powerful tool that simplifies the intricate social dynamics and legal
interconnections among judicial actors. By representing these complexities as nodes
and ties, researchers can leverage network analysis theories and metrics to uncover
insights into power structures, normative shifts, and the impact of social frameworks
on judicial decisions. This contribution focuses on core network analysis concepts,
showcasing applications in legal research, from actor networks to document relations.
It also addresses the challenges and promises of employing network analysis in the
legal domain.

Keywords: Network analysis, comparative law, citation networks,

network theory, centrality

1.Introduction:

Within the legal landscape, networks are pervasive, connecting lawyers through their
alma maters, arbitrators through shared cases, and judicial decisions through
citations. This article explores the use of network analysis in comprehending and
comparing these intricate webs of judicial actors and legal documents. Beyond its
visually appealing representations, the true strength of network analysis lies in its
intuitive simplicity, offering a clear lens through which to discern patterns and
structures in the legal world. This simplicity proves invaluable for comparative
studies, enabling researchers to apply consistent tools and theories across diverse
courts and jurisdictions.
Modern network analysis amalgamates insights from sociology, graph theory, and
complex adaptive system research, making it a versatile tool for various legal research
projects. By understanding how social networks form and influence individuals,
employing powerful graph theory tools, and leveraging insights from self-organizing
networks, researchers can compare legal networks effectively.

While network analysis has garnered attention from legal scholars, this chapter
emphasizes its specific contributions to the comparative study of judicial behavior.
Section 1 introduces fundamental network analysis concepts, highlighting their
relevance to court and tribunal investigations. Section 2 explores the two main
branches of legal network analysis: social network analysis of legal actors and the
network relationships within legal documents and citations. Section 3 addresses
common challenges in legal network analysis, and Section 4 outlines potential
avenues for future research in this dynamic field.

2.Unlocking Insights: The Merits of Network Analysis in

Comparative Court Studies

Network analysis proves to be an invaluable tool in the toolkit of legal scholars for
several compelling reasons. Firstly, it boasts an inherent intuitiveness that facilitates
the interpretation of results. Secondly, it is accompanied by a set of enlightening
theories. Thirdly, its metrics enable the empirical study of networks, making it both
possible and scalable. Lastly, the combination of these attributes ensures that network
analysis yields comparable results across diverse contexts.

a. Intuitiveness of Network Analysis:

Delving into the intuitive nature of network analysis, let's consider the
straightforward network graph depicted in Figure 1. This basic network comprises
nodes (or vertices) connected by ties (or edges), forming clusters of interconnected
nodes. More intricate networks may involve directional ties, weighted connections,
bimodal connections linking different node types (e.g., judges and their authored
decisions), or multiplex connections employing various tie types. Despite potential
complexities, the simplicity of graphs, exemplified in Figure 1, underscores the
intuitive appeal of network analysis.
Examining Figure 1 prompts a critical question: which node holds the most
significance in this small network? Node B, with its numerous connections, may be
deemed crucial, akin to a leader among friends or a pivotal judicial decision cited
across the legal landscape. Conversely, node A, with fewer direct ties, plays a unique
role by bridging separate groups in the network. Network analysis evaluates node
importance, or centrality, through various lenses, such as degree centrality for well-
connected nodes like B or betweenness centrality for bridge-like nodes like A.

Shifting focus, let's ponder another question: which tie is likely to form next? Node D
is linked to a node in the right-side cluster but not yet to node B. Given B's extensive
network encompassing D's connection, it's probable that D will connect to B. This
scenario aligns with network theory insights, such as triadic closure and preferential
attachment. Triadic closure posits that missing links in a triad are likely to form, akin
to the "friends of my friend" principle. Preferential attachment suggests that nodes
with numerous existing ties tend to attract even more, mirroring how well-followed
Twitter users garner additional followers and landmark decisions accumulate more
citations.

In essence, the intuitive nature of network analysis, coupled with dedicated theories
and metrics, equips researchers to formalize these intuitions, making it a valuable and
accessible tool in the comparative study of courts.

b. The Theoretical Richness of Network Analysis:

Network analysis brings forth a rich set of theories that prove instrumental in
examining legal and socio-legal networks. Particularly, social network analysis,
rooted in law and sociology, furnishes a plethora of theories. While Section 3 will
delve into social network analysis, this section underscores the potential of general
network theory. In the late 1990s, physicists identified a common logic governing
various self-organizing systems, ranging from the World Wide Web to brain neurons
and social networks, termed "small world" and "scale-free" networks (Watts and
Strogatz 1998; Albert and Barabási 2002).
Scale-free networks, observed in legal contexts like arbitrators or judicial decisions,
exhibit distinctive features. Unlike the normal distribution seen in, for instance, human
height, where most individuals cluster around average height, scale-free networks follow a
power law distribution. In legal networks, this translates to a majority of nodes having
few connections while a select few nodes boast a disproportionate number of connections.
This phenomenon is evident in international investment law, where a handful of
arbitrators handle numerous cases, or in legal jurisdictions where a small set of landmark
judgments garners significant references.

The driving force behind the scale-free nature of these networks is preferential attachment
—nodes with existing connections tend to attract more. This phenomenon contributes to
the "richer-get-richer" dynamic, propelling certain individuals, decisions, or articles to
elevated status within legal discourse. The resulting "minority rules" phenomenon
accentuates the influence of a select few in shaping legal landscapes.

The scale-free nature of these networks holds implications for their resilience and
vulnerability. While resistant to change, newcomers face challenges in breaking into well-
established networks, as seen in the slow progress toward gender parity in certain legal
communities. Simultaneously, targeted disruptions, such as overturning a landmark case,
can destabilize these networks, given the pivotal role of central nodes.

Additionally, scale-free networks exhibit a "small-world" nature, characterized by densely

connected clusters interconnected by bridge nodes. This structure facilitates quick
traversal through the network, known colloquially as "six degrees of separation." Small-
world networks are conducive to the rapid spread of ideas or legal changes, making them
susceptible to going "viral." Network analysis can unveil chokepoints and identify power
brokers within these networks, offering insights into legal norm diffusion, caselaw
development, and power dynamics within judiciaries.

Given the prevalence of small-world characteristics in many legal networks, the

application of network theory emerges as a crucial tool for advancing our understanding
of legal processes and dynamics.
c. Metrics Enriching Empirical Analysis in Legal Networks:

Network analysis proves to be a crucial asset for empirical studies of courts and
tribunals, offering scalable techniques to explore both social and normative dynamics
within legal networks. Specifically, three categories of metrics enhance the depth of
analysis: (1) node metrics for assessing the importance of specific actors or cases, (2)
grouping metrics for dissecting network structures by identifying clusters, and (3)
network metrics for characterizing the network as a whole, including aspects like
density or sparsity.

Node Metrics: A fundamental application of network analysis involves evaluating the

role and importance of nodes within a legal network. In social networks, this is vital
for identifying power brokers or bridge ties (Puig 2018). In legal networks, node
metrics enable empirical analysis, shedding light on, challenging, or scaling doctrinal
studies (Šadl and Olsen 2017). For instance, determining a court's most important
cases traditionally relies on qualitative assessments, but node metrics offer a
quantitative approach. Derlen and Lindholm showcase the contrast between node
metrics and textbook accounts of leading European Union law cases, revealing
instances where certain decisions are underappreciated or overemphasized (Derlén
and Lindholm 2014). This quantitative perspective, especially in citation network
analysis, provides a complementary and corrective lens to evaluate a case's
importance within a broader jurisprudential context.

Centrality, denoting the place of a node in a network, encompasses nuances tailored

to specific research questions. Degree centrality counts connections, betweenness
centrality identifies bridge nodes, and eigenvector centrality evaluates a node's
importance based on its neighborhood. In directed networks, authority and hub
scores assess a node's referencing and being referenced, respectively. In legal citation
studies, these centrality measures play a pivotal role in determining the importance of
cases as precedents (Smith 2007; Fowler et al. 2007; Neale 2013; Carmichael et al.
2017).

Grouping Metrics: Community detection algorithms automatically identify clusters

within a network, grouping nodes into communities of legal actors or decisions.
Caution is warranted due to different plausible algorithms yielding different results.
Validation strategies, discussed further in Section 4, ensure robust application.
Scholars have employed grouping metrics to unveil communities of cases that cite
each other frequently.
d. Network Analysis: An Ideal Comparative Tool

The intuitive nature, rich theories, and diverse metrics of network analysis make it a
versatile tool applicable to various legal networks. This versatility lays the foundation
for effective comparative analysis of judicial behavior. Network analysis facilitates the
exploration of similar dynamics in different legal systems, opening unprecedented
avenues for comparative legal research. For instance, by mapping citation networks
in both common law and civil law jurisdictions, network analysis can either validate
conventional wisdom or challenge prevailing assumptions about differences between
these legal systems. Similarly, when investigating the network of judicial actors,
researchers can systematically trace variations in judicial careers across jurisdictions
and map the consequent impact on jurisprudence. What makes network analysis
particularly appealing to comparative scholars is its ability to initially simplify the
complex landscape of legal regimes into nodes and ties. However, it then reintroduces
these differences at the interpretation stage, enabling the comprehension of varying
network structures. Not surprisingly, recent decades have witnessed substantial
growth in scholarship applying network analysis to the field of law.

3. Legal Network Analysis

Scholarship employing network analysis to explore law and the courts falls into two
primary camps: one scrutinizes judicial actors through social network analysis, while
the other delves into legal document networks, often focusing on citation networks
linking judicial decisions.

These two realms intersect in various ways, employing similar methods to investigate
network structures and contributing insights into the normative evolution of law. As
Dan Katz notes, "the manner in which doctrine changes cannot be divorced from the
manner of self-organized social structure relevant actors confront" (Daniel M Katz
2008, 981). However, crucial distinctions exist between social network analysis and
other network studies (Kadushin 2011).
a. Network Analysis of Judicial Actors

Social network analysis offers concepts that legal scholars leverage to examine social
networks within the legal domain. Homophily, the tendency for individuals with
similar characteristics or views to connect, is a key concept. This phenomenon
produces homogeneity within groups, reinforcing divisions and crowding out
alternative views. In legal networks, elite institutions, such as Harvard and Yale,
shape the majority of U.S. law professors, fostering intellectual homophily and
entrenching existing hierarchies (D. Katz et al. 2011). Another critical social network
phenomenon is influence, where connected actors tend to influence one another. This
insight helps reveal the social capital of individuals within a group, such as power
brokers in the system of investment arbitrators (Puig 2014).

Beyond power dynamics, social network structures play a vital role in the evolution of
the law. Micro-motives of legal actors and their interactions generate systemic
changes in common law, influencing the development of American law (Daniel M
Katz 2008, 981). Scholars emphasize the importance of understanding social network
structures for normative changes, translating social influence into normative
influence. Exploring how the network structure of social actors impacts legal
evolution remains a frontier for students of legal networks. Empirical research could
validate whether central actors in academia or the judiciary leverage their network
position to generate systemic changes in the common law or make their political
preferences more dominant.

On the theoretical side, legal researchers could draw on the rich network diffusion
literature to trace how legal innovations travel through legal academia or the
judiciary. Concepts like "weak ties" and "structural holes" in a network can shed light
on why some legal concepts go viral while others do not. Studying "structural
similarity" across jurisdictions, where nodes share similar patterns of relationships,
can facilitate comparative legal research. For comparativists, social network analysis
provides an illuminating tool to explore questions like when outsiders become insiders
and the implications for both the judiciary and the law when actors from the network
periphery move to its center.
b. Legal Citation Network Analysis

Most legal scholars dedicate network analysis efforts to the study of document
networks, particularly citation networks. Legal citation analysis is popular due to
citations serving as useful proxies for empirically investigating core normative
phenomena. It provides insights into precedent, stare decisis, dissent, and normative
change or continuity.

Legal citation scholarship has expanded rapidly, covering various areas relevant to
scholars studying comparative judicial behavior. Researchers have applied network
theory to law, confirming that legal networks share characteristics with real-world
scale-free networks. Network metrics have been probed to map them accurately to
normative questions like the importance of precedent, addressing challenges posed by
the time-bound nature of citations. Citation analysis has challenged doctrines or
conventional wisdom, providing empirical evidence to validate hunches and critically
evaluating research practices. It has also facilitated the comparison of courts and legal
systems, uncovering the relative importance of precedent and the institutionalization
of a court.

In summary, legal citation networks offer a rich source for the comparative study of
judicial behavior, while social network analysis sheds light on the dynamics and
power structures among judicial actors.

4. Challenges in Legal Network Analysis

Researchers applying network analysis to comparatively study judicial behavior

encounter challenges related to (1) data availability, (2) aligning methods with legal
research questions, and (3) validating insights gained from network analysis.
a. Datasets and Missing Data

Network analysis relies on data in the form of a "link list" or an "adjacency matrix."
Compiling and curating network data present challenges in terms of data access,
extraction, and the pervasive issue of missing data. Accessing information about
interpersonal connections in actor networks can be laborious and may involve ethical
concerns. Extracting relevant information from legal documents, particularly for
building document or citation networks, often requires digitization and collaboration
with information extraction experts. The most significant challenge lies in dealing
with missing data, which can create biases in empirical research. In network analysis,
systematic missing data makes it impossible to discern the underlying network
structure, emphasizing the need for researchers to reflect on and address the dangers
of missing observations.

b. Matching Network Analysis Concepts with Legal

Questions

A key challenge involves aligning the network analysis method with the legal research
question. In the emerging field of legal network analysis, a methodological orthodoxy
is yet to fully develop. However, some guiding principles are emerging. Researchers
must explicitly decide which theoretical construct they aim to measure and consider
factors such as the type of citations and the hierarchy level to analyze based on their
theoretical target. Aligning network methods with the study of specific social
phenomena, as established in social network scholarship, can provide valuable
insights. While debates on the appropriateness of specific metrics persist, scholars can
make informed decisions about selecting measures to answer specific research
questions. However, certain aspects of network analysis methods, particularly node
grouping algorithms, remain challenging to validate.
c. Validating Insights Gained Through Network Analysis

Validating network analysis is difficult due to the lack of established conventions on

the best metrics for specific research questions and the exploratory nature of the
analysis. Researchers can employ strategies such as applying different methods and
comparing results or benchmarking findings against known data to enhance
validation. Additionally, assessing the predictive capacity of a measure can be
valuable for gauging its validity.

5. Networks and Beyond

Legal network analysis is still in its early stages, with many theories awaiting
widespread application. Overcoming challenges related to data, methods, and
validation is crucial for further popularizing the method. Two promising avenues for
future research in legal network analysis include:

a. Networks and Natural Language Processing

Natural language processing and machine learning enable the automated processing
of text data, simplifying the creation of networks and enriching analyses. Automated
information extraction from legal texts can contribute to the construction of
networks, while natural language analysis can provide deeper insights into the context
and purpose of citations. Future research may explore how natural language
processing can move beyond stylized studies of large reference networks to become a
tailored tool for mapping specific normative changes or doctrinal disagreements.
b. Network Modeling and Inferential Network Analysis

Inferential network analysis seeks to explain network structure by using models to

create counterfactual structures for comparison. Different models, such as
Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs) for social networks and Directed
Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) for citation networks, offer avenues to explore the drivers of
network formation. While still in its infancy, inferential network analysis holds the
potential to uncover the factors influencing the structure of social and citation
networks. Technical barriers to entry remain, but interdisciplinary collaboration can
drive progress in this field.

Conclusion

In essence, network analysis offers a promising array of theories, tools, and metrics
for the comparative study of judicial behavior. Whether applied to social networks
within the legal realm or to legal document and citation networks, it directs attention
to structures formed through relationships. By simplifying the world into nodes and
ties, profound insights can be gleaned about the formation, operation, and impacts of
actor and document networks on the law they contribute to shaping. This
contribution has outlined fundamental network theory concepts—from triadic closure
to preferential attachment—and introduced popular network measures spanning
node metrics like degree or betweenness centrality to broader network metrics like
density. It has also addressed challenges confronting scholars using network analysis
in law, emphasizing issues related to (missing) data, methods, and validation.
Ultimately, it concludes by outlining the research frontier, envisioning a path where
scholars merge network analysis with natural language processing and transition from
descriptive to inferential network analysis.