Philipp Schroeder
Biographic Data
| ID | 4375407 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Philipp Schroeder |
| GIVEN NAMES | Philipp |
| FAMILY NAME | Schroeder |
| SIGNATURE | SCHROEDER P |
| AFFILIATIONS | Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München |
| ORCID | 0000-0003-3410-1152 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 5 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 9 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 5 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2021 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2025 |
| H-INDEX | 2 |
Negative References to Amicus Briefs in Judicial Reasoning
We argue that negative references to amicus curiae briefs in high court judgments – instances where a court explicitly signals disagreement with the legal arguments in such briefs – are a significant and understudied feature of judicial reasoning. We theorize that such references may provide courts with a tool for increasing the precision of its case law, fostering its legitimacy, and increasing compliance pressure. Our empirical analysis of the …
Liberal-democratic self-defense through rights restrictions: The European Court of Human Rights between enabling self-defense and constraining governmental overreach
Seizing opportunities: The determinants of the CJEU’s deference to national courts
Recent studies of the preliminary reference procedure highlight that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) defers to national courts at higher rates than scholars initially expected. However, we know little about how the Court chooses which questions to leave for national courts to determine and which ones require its attention. I argue that the CJEU evaluates whether a referred question is representative of a broader set of cases nas…
Pushing Boundaries: How Lawmakers Shape Judicial Decision-Making
Existing literature highlights that constitutional courts influence lawmakers’ policy choices without actively intervening in the policymaking process. Lawmakers know that courts may scrutinize their acts and have incentives to amend their policies to pre-empt judicial interventions. However, evidence suggests that lawmakers are not always prepared to sacrifice policy objectives to avoid censure from courts. I develop a formal model showing how l…
From One to Many: Identifying Issues in CJEU Jurisprudence
Research of judges and courts traditionally centers on judgments, treating each judgment as a unit of observation. However, judgments often address multiple distinct and more or less unrelated issues. Studying judicial behavior on a judgment level therefore loses potentially important details and risks drawing false conclusions from the data. We present a method to assist researchers with splitting judgments by issues using a supervised machine l…
Seizing opportunities: The determinants of the CJEU’s deference to national courts
Recent studies of the preliminary reference procedure highlight that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) defers to national courts at higher rates than scholars initially expected. However, we know little about how the Court chooses which questions to leave for national courts to determine and which ones require its attention. I argue that the CJEU evaluates whether a referred question is representative of a broader set of cases nas…
Pushing Boundaries: How Lawmakers Shape Judicial Decision-Making
Existing literature highlights that constitutional courts influence lawmakers’ policy choices without actively intervening in the policymaking process. Lawmakers know that courts may scrutinize their acts and have incentives to amend their policies to pre-empt judicial interventions. However, evidence suggests that lawmakers are not always prepared to sacrifice policy objectives to avoid censure from courts. I develop a formal model showing how l…
Liberal-democratic self-defense through rights restrictions: The European Court of Human Rights between enabling self-defense and constraining governmental overreach
From One to Many: Identifying Issues in CJEU Jurisprudence
Research of judges and courts traditionally centers on judgments, treating each judgment as a unit of observation. However, judgments often address multiple distinct and more or less unrelated issues. Studying judicial behavior on a judgment level therefore loses potentially important details and risks drawing false conclusions from the data. We present a method to assist researchers with splitting judgments by issues using a supervised machine l…
Pushing Boundaries: How Lawmakers Shape Judicial Decision-Making
Existing literature highlights that constitutional courts influence lawmakers’ policy choices without actively intervening in the policymaking process. Lawmakers know that courts may scrutinize their acts and have incentives to amend their policies to pre-empt judicial interventions. However, evidence suggests that lawmakers are not always prepared to sacrifice policy objectives to avoid censure from courts. I develop a formal model showing how l…
Seizing opportunities: The determinants of the CJEU’s deference to national courts
Recent studies of the preliminary reference procedure highlight that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) defers to national courts at higher rates than scholars initially expected. However, we know little about how the Court chooses which questions to leave for national courts to determine and which ones require its attention. I argue that the CJEU evaluates whether a referred question is representative of a broader set of cases nas…
Negative References to Amicus Briefs in Judicial Reasoning
We argue that negative references to amicus curiae briefs in high court judgments – instances where a court explicitly signals disagreement with the legal arguments in such briefs – are a significant and understudied feature of judicial reasoning. We theorize that such references may provide courts with a tool for increasing the precision of its case law, fostering its legitimacy, and increasing compliance pressure. Our empirical analysis of the …
Liberal-democratic self-defense through rights restrictions: The European Court of Human Rights between enabling self-defense and constraining governmental overreach
Law (4 works) · Law (4 works) · Political science (4 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (3 works) · Deference (2 works) · Economic Justice (2 works) · Economics (2 works) · European and International Law Studies (2 works) · European court of justice (2 works) · European union (2 works)