limitations of legal research

Law Comparison as a Research Method in Legal Studies, and Its Importance in Promoting Uniformity in Legal Systems

Conference paper
Open Access
First Online: 29 March 2024
Cite this conference paper

You have full access to this open access conference paper

Hiba Al Abiad 13 &
Ayman Masadeh 13

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 473))

3751 Accesses

The article examines law comparison as a research method and its application in reinforcing legal systems. Comparative legal research methods and challenges will be briefly discussed. Comparative legal research is crucial for identifying effective methods, promoting legal framework uniformity and comprehension, as well as modernising the legal system. This article also discusses comparative law and model laws like the New York Convention (the “NYC”) on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Comparative law investigations ensure fair, efficient, and successful utilisation of legal systems. The author suggests that legal practitioners and scholars utilise it to clarify legal difficulties and find worldwide best practices.

You have full access to this open access chapter, Download conference paper PDF

Conclusion: The Relevance of Comparative Law

Ethics in Legal Research

Law Comparison
New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
Best Practice

1 Introduction

Law comparison is a well acknowledged approach in legal research that comprises assessing various legal systems of different jurisdictions from several perspectives to identify commonalities and differences. This method is often used to provide a detailed understanding of the global legal structure and to identify areas that may be improved. Comparative law may significantly contribute to maintaining uniformity in the implementation of model laws and conventions such as the NYC, thereby assuring consistency.

Comparative law has gained recognition as a significant analytical tool, taking into account model laws, treaties, and conventions such as the NYC. Through the analysis of how various legal systems interpret and implement certain rules, comparative law may facilitate the identification of areas that need more precision and uniformity. Furthermore, it may provide guidance on the proper understanding and execution of these laws in a way that is consistent with the core concepts and objectives.

This study will examine utilization of comparison as a technique for legal research and explore its distinction from comparisons and analogical reasoning often used by legal professionals and judges in their daily practise. This methodological approach has certain obstacles that will be discussed.

This paper will emphasise various ways and methodologies that may be applied in comparative law study, with each method serving a specific purpose.

Subsequently, the author will analyse the objectives of comparative law research, whether conducted at a national or multinational scale, and assess its significance in discerning optimal methodologies. Consequently, enhancing the consistency and accuracy in enforcing rules and treaties, thus improving overall legal systems.

The author will assert that comparative law is a fundamental study methodology that enhances legal systems and fosters further uniformity in the implementation of laws and conventions. Researchers and legal practitioners should use comparative law methodologies to get a more comprehensive understanding of legal matters and to discern optimal approaches from other jurisdictions. By applying such approach, legal practitioners may contribute to safeguarding equitable, streamlined, and impactful judicial systems.

2 Law Comparison in Legal Research

By using comparison as a logical and inductive approach, an individual can conduct an impartial assessment of the merits and drawbacks inherent in a particular standard, method, framework, process, or establishment in comparison to others. Regarding its significance in legal research, comparison involves analysing the legal experiences of diverse situations and jurisdictions in order to make evaluative judgments (Siems, 2022 ).

At first instance law comparison does not seem arduous; legal practitioners often use comparisons to support their arguments, and judges use analogical reasoning to apply legal rules from comparable situations to new or unregulated situations. Simply put, almost any claim made by legal practitioners the comparison will either explicitly or implicitly involve juxtaposing the situation with another. Furthermore, judges often use analogical reasoning to make decisions in novel or unregulated scenarios by applying guidelines from comparable situations. They compare the situation at hand with others, whether real or hypothetical, to determine a suitable decision (Lundmark & Waller, 2016 ).

However, with the increase in global international trade, legal situations can become more complex when multiple jurisdictions are involved. For example, consider a transaction or trade between a French and an English person taking place in Saudi Arabia for the sale of goods to be shipped on a Cypriot vessel to a port in China. In the event of a dispute, determining the appropriate jurisdiction for the court and which law to apply becomes the first challenge. Should it be the law of France, England, China, or Cyprus?

As globalism continues to shape our world, the need for comparative law has become more apparent. The legal systems of different countries are increasingly interacting with one another, through international trade, investment, and other forms of cooperation. Comparative law provides a framework for understanding these interactions and for resolving conflicts that may arise between different legal systems. According to Sathe, S.P:

“During an era of globalization, if a particular culture is not dominant, the culture stands the risk of losing the features of its legal system that are unique to the culture. Globalism is the latest exigency that emphasizes the need to employ comparative law.” (Sathe, 2002 ).

Consequently, comparative legal research involving various laws is distinct from the comparison used by lawyers and judges to particular situations. Conducting comparative legal research requires a unique approach and specific methods that enable legal scholars to delve into unfamiliar foreign legal systems.

Attempting to comprehend foreign legal systems, or even specific elements within them, in order to compare them with national laws can present significant challenges. This process extends beyond mere fact-finding and requires a different approach to legal interpretation than the one used at the national level.

3 Methods and Methodology of Law Comparison

Method and methodology are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings which is particularly relevant within the domain of comparative law.

Method refers to the specific techniques or approaches used to compare legal systems. Mark Van Hoecke identified six commonly employed approaches in comparative law research: (1) the analytical approach, (2) the functional approach, (3) the historical approach, (4) the structural approach, (5) the law-in-context approach, and (6) the common-core approach. The combination of those techniques represents the complete set of instruments available for conducting comparative research (Van Hoecke, 2011 ).

Each method can be a standalone method in legal research, or combining all of them in the same research is possible. The method's name points to the particular characteristic of that approach, notwithstanding the possibility of the integration of that approach with an additional technique.

3.1 Functional Approach

This approach centres on the roles and purposes that legal principles and establishments fulfil within a community. It seeks to identify the underlying societal needs and goals that legal rules aim to address and compares how different legal systems respond to those needs (Van Hoecke, 2011 ).

This technique includes various elements such as comprehending the law, emphasizing resemblances through comparison, constructing a framework (such as that of “legal families”), identifying what the researcher considers superior law, critically evaluating legal systems, or harmonizing laws (Michaels et al., 2006 ).

The functional method can be useful in identifying areas of legal convergence or divergence and in identifying the underlying values and goals that legal systems seek to achieve (Adams et al., 2017 ).

3.2 Structural Approach

The structural method involves analysing the overall structure and organization of legal systems and comparing the relationships between different legal institutions and rules.

This technique holds significant importance, especially because it is acknowledged that disparities among diverse legal systems in terms of fundamental regulations lose significance if they exhibit adequate structural resemblances to classify them under the same “legal family” when compared to other jurisdictions and families lacking those commonalities. Thus, the process of selecting the most appropriate criteria to identify “similar structures” exerts a critical influence on shaping the outcomes.

This method seeks to identify the hierarchical and organizational patterns that exist in different legal systems (Van Hoecke, 2011 ).

3.3 Analytical Approach

This approach explores legal interpretation by evaluating numerous explanations of a given concept within multiple legal systems. It comprises examining and contrasting legislative theories across these systems. Legal analysts deploy this method to study the origin and use of legal terminology in differing systems and assess the approach they utilised to identical legal situations (Van Hoecke, 2011 ).

3.4 Law in Context Approach

For legal outsiders, contextualising the law clarifies its practicality. However, explaining foreign legislation requires extensive exploration (Orucu, 2006 ).

This approach evaluates legal norms and institutions' social, political, and economic environment for the purpose of understanding the way cultural, political, and economic influences shape legal laws and institutions. This strategy helps comprehend how legal concepts and institutions address social issues (Hantrais, 1999 ).

3.5 Historical Approach

The historical approach explores the law's origins and reasons in specific countries to understand its current state. Although comparative analysis entails knowing current laws' roots, the “law-in-context” approach extends beyond historical methodologies. It correlates and contrasts beyond simple examination to reflect how political, social, and economic pressures have affected legal laws and institutions across time. History in this context can elucidate legal concepts and institutions (Glenn, 2019 ).

3.6 Common-Law Approach

The common law approach evaluates shared legal concepts and standards by analysing a common legal concept or rule across legal systems. To draw meaningful comparisons, comparative law studies would carefully select legal systems dependent on their cultural, historical, and systemic roots (Glenn, 2007 ). Methods ought to coincide with the study question and legal systems' advantages and disadvantages. Comparative study results must be analysed thoroughly while recognizing technique limitations and biases. Research credibility and dependability rely upon well-designed procedures, careful survey, and reliable data from various juridical systems, involving an in-depth evaluation of legislative source accuracy, translations, and case selection biases (Legrand, 2023 ).

4 Comparison-Based Legal Research Challenges and Goals

Legal researchers have acknowledged that comparative legal research, is critical in a multinational economy with interrelated legal frameworks, yet it raises numerous obstacles. Language barriers and access to statutes and research articles are challenges that hinder comparative research in law. International law comparability and cross-jurisdictional police work are made more difficult by legal system design, language, approaches, as well as cultural and socioeconomic distinctions. Legal systems vary; additionally, political pressures tend to render comparisons invalid. When considering cultural diversity, intellectual property rights, and privacy, ethics are essential (Van Hoecke, 2011 ).

Comparative law has various goals. It aids in helping students perceive global legal dynamics by exposing them to other laws and customs (Zweigert & Kötz, 1999 ).

It's particularly valuable in developing nations with minimal legal resources. The comparative legal system addresses justice, equality, and human rights, providing innovative solutions to injustice and disparities in gender (Bhat, 2015 ). Also, it assists in achieving local and global legal targets. It strengthens the understanding of national law, enhances updates legal frameworks, facilitates new legislation, and guides policymakers on forthcoming modifications by comparing other jurisdictions. By recognising best practises across the legal systems, it promotes global legal norms, supports international cooperation, and strengthens human rights protection (Zweigert & Siehr, 1971 ). This approach fosters legal solidarity and reverence amongst legal traditions. (Eberle, 2008 ).

5 The Need for Harmonisation and Uniformity of Transnational Law

Transnational legal practise relies on the comparative law approach to develop transnational commercial law, improve conflict of laws, promote consistency in resolving commercial law disputes, interpret uniform laws, and determine international trade usage. Commerce has always relied on applied comparative law to assess, allocate, and mitigate cross-border transaction risk, mostly through commercial law harmonisation.

The International Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (NYC), the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), and the Convention for the Promulgation of International Commercial Arbitration are prime examples of international law harmonisation efforts in international commercial transactions.

The widely recognised NYC, signed and ratified by 172 states, promotes international commercial arbitration and encourages countries to pass laws supporting it. To promote harmonisation, many jurisdictions have adopted the Model Law, which provides a uniform template for arbitration proceedings. The Model Law has been used by 118 jurisdictions in 85 states to adopt civil or common law legislation. At the time of publication, 95 states are CISG signatories.

The ICC has championed NYC harmonisation and global adoption. The NYC is the most respected international legal instrument for international arbitration, according to the ICC.

The ICC's 2020 Statistical Report on International Court of Arbitration shows a steady rise in international arbitration cases worldwide. The NYC's global reach and importance in facilitating international trade and investment through the successful acknowledgment and execution of international arbitration awards are shown by the ICC's 35% caseload increase between 2010 and 2020.

The Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, GISG, and NYC have helped global trade and investment by providing a framework for resolving cross-border commercial disputes. These conventions can reduce transaction costs and boost international trade and investment confidence by resolving commercial disputes reliably and effectively, boosting economic growth.

6 Application of the NYC in Different Legal Jurisdictions

Article V of the NYC provides a structured approach with seven clearly defined and comprehensive grounds upon which Contracting States may refuse recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, yet the consistent application of those grounds is often lacking.

Article V use and interpretation in different jurisdictions determine their propensity or hesitancy towards engaging in to arbitrate internationally. Additionally, this phenomenon could significantly impact international arbitration system stability. Consistent enforcement builds arbitration trust. Although national courts generally support enforcement, issues can arise, especially when applying Article V of the NYC and the public policy exception.

US Supreme Court stance is an example. The court interprets Article V grounds for refusing to enforce an arbitration award carefully. In this methodology, the criteria for denial should be narrowly interpreted, with judicial bodies deferring to the arbitrator's decision unless there is conclusive evidence of one of the explicitly stated justifications. In GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, the court upheld the position. In this case, the NYC does not allow a court to refuse to enforce the Convention's provisions due to the parties' lack of agreement on arbitrators or procedures. The case of GE Energy Power France v. Outokumpu Stainless USA examines their legal dispute. (GE Energy Power France v. Outokumpu Stainless USA).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia refused to enforce a foreign arbitral award against India in Hardy Exploration & Production (India), Inc. v. Government of India, citing public policy violations. The court ruled that a specific performance order would violate India's sovereignty and jurisdiction over its territory and violate public policy of upholding foreign nations' rights. The court also found that investment interest would be indistinguishable from specific performance. The court also found that the punitive interest violated public policy. The interest also violated US foreign sovereign immunity law, which prohibits punitive damages against foreign states. Government of India v. Hardy Exploration & Production (India), Inc.

The London arbitral award in Société PT Putrabali was issued. England invalidated this award under Sect. 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996, which governs legal appeals. However, the winning party used the French delocalization doctrine to enforce the award in France (Société PT Putrabali v Rena Holding & Ors). The parties then initiated a second arbitration, which favoured the losing party. The second award was enforceable in England but not in France due to the res judicata exception. Thus, France and England had two legitimate but unenforceable awards due to differing views on setting aside and recognition (Thadikkaran, 2014 ).

The London award was not enforced by the Dubai Court of Cassation because the signatory of the arbitration agreement did not authorise arbitration. The Court ruled that the NYC should apply to recognising and enforcing the award. The Court also found that the party seeking to enforce the award had shown the signatory's incapacity. Thus, the Court denied recognition and enforcement of the aforementioned based on NYC Article V(1)(a). DCC Case 400/2014.

In UAE court proceedings, the party responsible for paying a debt The debt-holder claimed in a UAE court that the arbitration agreement was signed by an unauthorised person and that the tribunal notified an unrelated commercial agent. They claimed the award should not be recognised and implemented under New York Convention Articles V.1(a) and (b). The court ordered that capacity and authority be determined by the arbitration seat's legal framework, not the company's jurisdiction. Therefore, the Dubai Court of Cassation dismissed the objection against the foreign award, arguing that the individual who signed the agreement had the authority to legally bind the company and that it must comply with the arbitration agreement. According to this decision, the arbitration seat's legal framework is crucial to the enforceability of an arbitration agreement, regardless of the company's incorporation jurisdiction. DCC Case 693/2015.

The Dubai Court of Cassation rejected a Chinese arbitral award for violating Article 41(3) of the UAE's Arbitration Law. This provision requires the arbitrator's signature on all pages of the award, not just the operative section. The Court ruled that the issue was public policy and could be raised for the first time in the Court of Cassation. (DCC Case 403/2020).

The previous decision was procedural, not substantive. However, the inflexible procedural stance seems to contradict the Convention's main goal of enforcing arbitral awards unless they meet specific grounds for refusal, usually related to more serious issues.

Comparative legal research is needed to harmonise NYC Article V implementation worldwide. The U.S. Supreme Court often interprets Article V provisions restrictively. Due to public policy concerns, the U.S. District Court did not enforce legal measures against India. Award invalidation in England and res judicata in France complicate matters. The Dubai Court of Cassation has held various rulings on arbitration agreement signatories and procedural issues. Comparative legal research helps identify these differences and unify Article V understanding and implementation across legal systems.

7 Conclusion

Despite various inconsistencies in the NYC and Model Law application, both have been adopted and have been broadly implemented worldwide, promoting international trade and investment by providing uniform and predictable systems for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards and resolving cross-border commercial disputes. This can lower costs and risks, thus benefiting economic growth (Mistelis & Brekoulakis, 2009 ).

There are different proposals for unifying the NYC application in international arbitration which involve:

Clear and unambiguous regulations that are necessary for parties to fully -recognize their rights and duties under the NYC. To reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding and contradiction, national legislation must align with NYC requirements.

Consistent interpretation: NYC interpretation must be comparable across jurisdictions. A unified body can propose binding Convention interpretations. As an alternative, the International Court of Justice might provide NYC interpretation advisory opinions.

Treaty obligations compliance: Governments have to conform to NYC treaty commitments-by recognising and enforcing arbitral judgements according to NYC rules as NYC's efficacy and international arbitration system reliability could be jeopardised -by non-compliance to treaty

Reference Lists

Adams, M., Husa, J., Oderkerk, M.: Comparative Law Methodology. Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham, UK (2017)

Book Google Scholar

Bhat, P.I.: Comparative method of legal research: nature, process and potentiality. J. Indian Law Inst. 57 (2), 147–173 (2015)

MathSciNet Google Scholar

Eberle, E.J.: The method and role of comparative law. SSRN Electron. J. [Preprint] (2008)

Google Scholar

Fernández Arroyo, D.P.: The curious case of an arbitration with two annulment courts: comments on the YPF saga. Arbitr. Int. 33 (2), 317–344 (2017)

Article Google Scholar

Glenn, H.P.: Legal traditions of the World: Sustainable Diversity in law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)

Glenn, H.P.: Comparative legal families and comparative legal traditions. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, pp. 422–441 (2019)

Hantrais, L.: Contextualization in cross-national comparative research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2 (2), 93–108 (1999)

Legrand, Pierre: Comparative Law and the Task of Negative Critique. Routledge, London (2023). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003161899

Lundmark, T., Waller, H.: Using statutes and cases in common and Civil Law. Transnational Legal Theory 7 (4), 429–469 (2016)

Michaels, R.: ‘Comparative Law and Economics’, in Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. EDWARD ELGAR PUBLISHING, S.l. (2006)

Mistelis, L.A., Brekoulakis, S.L.: Arbitrability: International and Comparative Perspectives, vol. 19. Kluwer Law International BV (2009)

Orucu, E.: Methodological aspects of comparative law. Eur. JL Reform 8 , 29 (2006)

Sathe, S.P.: Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits. Oxford University Press, New Delhi (2002)

Siems, M.M.: Comparative Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (2022)

Thadikkaran, M.: Enforcement of annulled arbitral awards: What is and what ought to be? J. Int. Arbitration 31 (Issue 5), 575–608 (2014). https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2014028

Van Hoecke, M.: Methodologies of legal research: which kind of method for what kind of discipline? Bloomsbury Publishing (2011)

Zweigert, K., Kötz, H.: An introduction to comparative law. Edinburgh Law Rev. 3 (2), 263 (1999). https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.1999.3.2.263

Zweigert, K., Siehr, K.: Jhering’s influence on the development of comparative legal method. Am. J. Comp. Law 19 (2), 215 (1971)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The British University in Dubai, Dubai, UAE

Hiba Al Abiad & Ayman Masadeh

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiba Al Abiad .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Khalid Al Marri

Farzana Asad Mir

Solomon Arulraj David

Mostafa Al-Emran

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Al Abiad, H., Masadeh, A. (2024). Law Comparison as a Research Method in Legal Studies, and Its Importance in Promoting Uniformity in Legal Systems. In: Al Marri, K., Mir, F.A., David, S.A., Al-Emran, M. (eds) BUiD Doctoral Research Conference 2023. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 473. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56121-4_42

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56121-4_42

Published : 29 March 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-56120-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-56121-4

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

The Legal Quotient

In Legal Matters, Legal Quotient Matters

Doctrinal and Non-Doctrinal Research

Adv Hemant More

Research is the careful and systematic investigation and consideration of study regarding a particular concern or research problem using scientific methods. Research can also be considered as the process of discovering new knowledge. This knowledge can be either the development of new concepts or the advancement of existing knowledge and theories, leading to a new understanding that was not previously known. According to the American sociologist Earl Robert Babbie, “research is a systematic inquiry to describe, explain, predict, and control the observed phenomenon. It involves inductive and deductive methods.” Inductive methods analyze an observed event, while deductive methods verify the observed event. Inductive approaches are associated with qualitative research, and deductive methods are more commonly associated with quantitative analysis. While research can be carried out by anyone and in any field, most research is usually done to broaden knowledge in the physical, biological, and social worlds. In this article we shall study doctrinal research and non-doctrinal research, their purposes, merits and demerits..

The phrase ‘systematic investigation’ represents how research is normally conducted – a hypothesis is formed, appropriate research methods are designed, data is collected and analysed, and research results are summarised into one or more ‘research conclusions’. These research conclusions are then shared with the rest of the scientific community to add to the existing knowledge and serve as evidence to form additional questions that can be investigated. It is this cyclical process that enables scientific research to make continuous progress over the years; the true purpose of research.

Legal Research:

Legal research involves systematic examination of problems relating to law within appropriate methodological framework. It deals with study of different aspects of law such as principles, theories, process, historical development, comparative status, functioning of judiciary, justice delivery, among others. The systematic investigation of problems and of matters concerned with law such as codes, acts etc. is legal research. Judges, lawyers, Law Commissions and researchers constantly do research in law. Moreover, legal researcher can even go beyond the pure legal issues to study practical problems of the outer world in relation to law. Legal research can be broadly classified as doctrinal and non-doctrinal legal research on the basis of focus of the study – whether it examines theoretical and analytical aspects of ‘law as it is’ or it observes relevant social facts interrelated with law.

Doctrinal Research:

The word ‘doctrine’ is derived from the Latin word ‘doctrina’ which means to instruct, a lesson, a percept.

According to Prof. S. N. Jain, “Doctrinal research involves analysis of case law, arranging, ordering and systematizing legal propositions and study of legal institutions through legal reasoning or rational deduction.”

Dr. S.R. Myneni has defined, “A doctrinal research means a research that has been carried out on a legal proposition or propositions by way of analysing the existing statutory provisions and cases by applying the reasoning power.”

Doctrinal research is a research methodology that focuses on analyzing and interpreting legal documents, such as statutes, case law, regulations, and treaties, in understanding legal concepts, principles, and doctrines. It has its jurisprudential root on the positive or analytical school of law. It is epistemologically oriented and will focus on case-law, statutes and other legal sources. It differs from other methodologies in that it looks at the law within itself; a pure doctrinal approach makes no attempt to look at the effect of the law or how it is applied, but instead examines law as a written body of principles which can be discerned and analysed using only legal sources. Thus, doctrinal legal research is knowledge-based research in law rather than research about law. Judges, Lawyers, academicians, all are engaged in this kind of research.

Purpose of Doctrinal Legal Research:

To construct new legal theories, principles and doctrines, to test them and add new knowledge in the legal scholarship.
To help maintain continuity, consistency and certainty of law.
To resolve day-to-day client matters as it is more manageable and outcomes are more predictable due to its focus on established sources.
To advise courts or clients about the application of legal doctrine to specific cases, transactions, or other legal events.
To critically examine the judicial opinions and in case of conflicts between the decisions of different court, to suggest the resolution to those conflicts.
To provide lawyers, judges and others with the tools needed to reach decisions on an immense variety of problems, usually with very limited time at disposal.
To develop a theory that tries to explain how law or areas of law fit together;
To conduct comparative and historical inquiries describing an earlier era or contrasting legal regime;
To expose tensions within a body of law, legal practices or institutions; and to highlight these tensions and contradictions and attempt to link them to larger psychological, social, or philosophic difficulties

Characteristics of Doctrinal Research:

The distinctive characteristics of doctrinal legal research can be listed as follows:

Doctrinal legal research is legal propositions based study.
Conventional legal theory, law, statutory materials and court decisions report are the sources for doctrinal legal research.
It studies the law as it exists and not concerned about how it should be or even do not seek public opinion about how it should be.
It is research in law not research about law.
It is distinguished from literature review, content analysis or historical legal research. And
The bulk of legal research is a product of this approach.

Methodology of Doctrinal Research:

Doctrinal research is library-based or theoretical research and is the most common methodology employed by those undertaking research in law. It is concerned with the analysis of the legal doctrine and how it was developed and applied. It consists of either simple research aimed at finding a specific statement of the law, or it is legal analysis with more complex logic and depth. The methodology of doctrinal research involves several steps:

Identification of Research Problem: This involves defining the research problem or question and clarifying the scope of the research. For example, an investigation can be conducted to find specific legislation that monitors occurrences of child abuse in a particular jurisdiction.
Collection of Legal Sources: The next step is to gather relevant legal sources such as statutes, regulations, case law, and legal treatises. This stage often involves a great deal of background reading on a subject using sources such as dictionaries, encyclopaedias, major textbooks, treatises, and journals that are accompanied by footnotes. The process of finding relevant sources in contemporary doctrinal legal research may prove to be very difficult. The growing number of (digitalized) national and international results in an almost infinite sea of information. Hence, it is therefore often impossible to oversee all possible relevant sources related to a specific legal problem.
Evaluation of Legal Sources: Once the legal sources have been collected, the researcher must evaluate them to determine their relevance, reliability, and credibility.
Analysis of Legal Sources: After evaluating the legal sources, the researcher must analyze them to identify legal principles, concepts, and arguments.
Synthesis of Legal Principles: The researcher must then synthesize the legal principles and concepts that have been identified through analysis, to form a coherent and logical understanding of the legal topic.
Application of Legal Principles: Finally, the researcher must apply the legal principles and concepts that have been synthesized to the research problem or question, to arrive at a conclusion or recommendation. All inquiries will have specific answers to specific questions that can be easily found and verified, and these are the keys to doctrinal or library-based research.

Merits of Doctrinal Research Method:

Foundation for Future Research: Doctrinal research provides a foundation for further research, as it helps researchers identify legal gaps, inconsistencies, and ambiguities. Thus, a strong doctrinal analysis will be the starting point for much legal research. In legal research, a doctrinal focus is often a good starting point, but a lot of legal research will need to take analysis further than a purely doctrinal approach. The insights of doctrinal research can be used to develop new legal theories, propose legal reforms, or conduct empirical research.
Quick Answer to Legal Problem: Doctrinal research provides quick answers to the practical problems at hand by analyzing the legal principles, concepts and doctrines. Thereby serving as a ready reference to people who didn’t have time at their disposal to undertake that research by themselves. It helps in incrimination of legal knowledge base. 6. Future direction of the law can be predicted on the basis of such studies.
Helps in Development of Law: It offers a logical explanation to the law and at the same time also highlights inconsistencies and uncertainties in the law. It reveals gaps ambiguities and inconsistencies in the law. It lay down a roadmap to develop the law by avoiding the pitfalls. Judges have over time developed law from their deep knowledge and investigation into the field. Law of torts is one great example as it is a “judge-made law”.
Easier Method: It is often traditionally taught that legal research methods should be conducted in the early stages of legal training. As a result, most legal scholars will focus on the techniques used at the time, to initiate research at the graduation level. Doctrinal research represents a “base” in the legal community and most universities demand an even higher degree of work based on this ideological framework.
Cost Effective: Doctrinal research is a cost-effective research methodology, as it does not require extensive data collection or empirical analysis. Researchers can access legal documents online or in libraries, and analyze them using legal research tools and methodologies.
Time Efficient: Doctrinal research is a time-efficient research methodology, as legal documents are readily available and can be analyzed quickly. Researchers can also use legal research tools and methodologies to streamline the research process and save time.
Easily Manageable: Because of its focus on the sources of jurisprudence, established research is more manageable and results more predictable. For the postgraduate studies researcher, this may help with meeting deadlines and contain surprises.
Professional Development: Doctrinal research can help legal professionals, such as lawyers, judges, and scholars, enhance their knowledge and skills in a particular legal field. It enables them to develop a deeper understanding of legal concepts, principles, and doctrines, and apply them to real-world legal problems.

Demerits of Doctrinal Research:

Theoretical Method: it is highly theoretical and technical, uncritical, conservative, trivial and without due consideration of the social, economic and political importance of the legal process. It is primarily focused on analyzing existing legal sources and interpreting legal decisions. As a result, it may lack originality and creativity compared to other research methodologies.
Subjective in Nature: It can be subjective and suffer from the vice of perception of the researcher about the enquired subject matter. Therefore another person can reach upon an entirely different dimension to the same question.
No Empirical Support: The doctrinal research is often criticised for being disconnected with reality. It does not involve the collection of empirical data, such as surveys or interviews, which can provide insight into the impact of legal rules and practices on individuals and society. The law does not operate in a vacuum. It works within the community and impacts on the community. Thus, it is devoid of any support from social facts. Therefore his projection might be far off the social reality. This is a serious concern as law can act as an instrument of social transformation.
Possibility of Bias: Doctrinal research relies heavily on legal sources, which can be biased towards a particular interpretation of the law. This can lead to a limited or one-sided analysis of legal issues.
It may not be Updated: It neglects the factors that lie outside the strict brackets of law, which might have a bearing upon the legal principle, theory or doctrine. For example, the recent amendment in the criminal law regarding rape, wherein a huge public outcry was an extra-legal factor that shaped the law.
Limited Scope: Doctrinal research is limited to the study of legal sources, which may not provide a comprehensive understanding of a particular legal issue. It may overlook non-legal factors that can affect legal outcomes.

Non-Doctrinal Research:

Non-doctrinal research, also known as social-legal research, is research that employs methods taken from other disciplines to generate empirical data that answers research questions. It can be a problem, policy, or a reform of the existing law. It is a multidisciplinary field of inquiry that explores the intersection between law and society. Socio-legal research is a methodology that combines social science and legal principles to study the interaction between law and society. It involves the use of empirical methods to analyze legal institutions, practices, and policies within their social context.

Purposes of Non-Doctrinal Research:

To organize society in a systematic and peaceful or orderly manner, so ,the tool of research will have to be altered to cope up with the present problems, or come up with various measures to root out the different social evils
To trace the consequences of the outcome or legal decision making in terms of values, gains and deprivation of litigants, on litigants and non –legal institutions
To access the impact of non–legal events e.g.. economic development, growth of knowledge, technical changes upon legal decisions
To identify and appraise the magnitude of variable factors influencing the outcome of legal decision making e.g. the effect of capital punishment on the prevalence of dangerous crime at a given place at a given time
To easily trace out the actual consequence of any legal principles on the society or co-relation between law and other non-legal fact
To study the impact of legal principles upon non legal events, which may be social, political, economic, technology, and scientific, cyber world. The scope of empirical research is much broader than doctrinal research, and its basis source of knowledge are

Methodology of Non-Doctrinal Research:

Collection of Data: Data collection is the process of gathering and measuring information on variables of interest, in an established systematic fashion that enables one to answer stated research questions, test hypotheses, and evaluate outcomes. The data collection component of research is common to all fields of study including physical and social sciences, humanities, business, etc. While methods vary by discipline, the emphasis on ensuring accurate and honest collection remains the same. Interviews with the persons under consideration, lawyers, judges, and other legal professionals; focus groups with community organizations and advocacy groups; participant observation at court hearings and other legal proceedings helps in collecting data.
Classification of Data: The method of arranging data into homogeneous classes according to the common features present in the data is known as classification. The aim of classification is to consolidate the volume of data in such a way that similarities and differences can be quickly understood. Figures can consequently be ordered in sections with common traits.
Analysis of Data: Research data analysis is a process used by researchers to reduce data to a story and interpret it to derive insights. The data analysis process helps reduce a large chunk of data into smaller fragments, which makes sense.
Findings: It describes what the researcher found when they analyzed their data. Its primary purpose is to use the data collected to answer the research question posed in the introduction, even if the findings challenge the hypothesis.
Conclusions: The study may conclude that there is a need for reform in the legal system to address the needs and rights of communities and that greater attention should be paid to how social factors influence legal outcomes.

Merits of Non-Doctrinal Research:

It highlights the ‘gaps’ between ‘legislative goals’ and ‘social reality’ and thereby ‘depict’ a ‘true picture’ of’ that ‘law-in-action.
It assesses ‘role and contribution of law’ in bringing the intended social consequences. It highlights the ‘factors have been creating ‘impediments’ or posing ‘problems’ for the law in attaining its ‘goal(s)’.
It provides an ‘expert advice’ and gives significant feedback to the policy-makers, Legislature, and Judges for better formulation, enforcement and interpretation of the law.

Demerits of Non-Doctrinal Research:

Time Consuming and Costly: It is extremely time consuming and costly. It calls for additional training in designing and employing tools of data collection and entails greater commitments of time and energy to produce meaningful results.
Need of Strong Base of Doctrinal Research: It needs a strong base of doctrinal legal research. A legal scholar who is weak in doctrinal legal research cannot handle non-doctrinal legal research in a meaningful way.
Special Training Required: The basic tools of data collection are not simple to employ. They require specialized knowledge, training and skill from the stage of planning to execution. Law students are not adequately trained in the techniques of empirical research.
Results are Not Instant: It is extremely weak in solving a problem in hand. It cannot give a direction as to what course the law should follow to be useful.
Personal Issues: The law students lack a tradition sustaining non-doctrinal research. They cannot recognize their findings. Law researchers are obsessively preoccupied with the teaching function and their arm chair doctrinal research for the purpose of publication from promotions and enhance their income.
There is lack of adequate financial support
It cannot remain unaffected from human vices, upbringing and thinking because acceptance of a new system of law in India depends on many factors, such as awareness, value, capability and pattern of adaptation.

Distinguishing Between Doctrinal Research and Non-Doctrinal Research:

Conclusion:

In conclusion, we can say that it is easy to target a specific methodology and identify its strengths and weaknesses. However, it must be noted that doctrinal and non-doctrinal legal research are the ultimate way to find the answers that have been raised in the context of attempts to understand the emerging issues in the framework of the law. There is no hierarchy between methodologies and they are all of equal importance for the development and understanding of the law. What is crucial is that researchers must try and equip themselves with the necessary skills to enable them to comfortably meet their research objectives. Undoubtedly, a well-versed scholar will be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of any particular methodology, and will work to obtain the benefits that result from a better quality of work. Often, the combination of methodologies, i.e., a mixed method using ideological, social, and legal, can work together to achieve a better understanding of the law. Thus, postgraduate scholars would do well to equip themselves by using alternative research methodologies.