About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

51 J. Legal Stud. 427 (2022)
Aspirational Rules

handle is hein.journals/legstud51 and id is 435 raw text is: Aspirational Rules Adi Leibovitch and Alexander Stremitzer ABSTRACT A long-standing puzzle in comparative constitutional law revolves around the negative correla- tion between the number of constitutional rights incorporated in constitutions and a coun- try's human rights situation. Is it only a correlation, driven by other sociological or historical factors? Is it that committing to more de jure rights hurts the protection of de facto human rights? Or is it that countries with worse human rights records are more likely to amend their constitutions to include more rights? This article discusses an experiment that examines the existence and direction of a causal effect between setting overly ambitious goals and achieving outcomes and the potential mechanisms underlying it. The main finding is that setting overly ambitious goals may not only be counterproductive in the domains in which such goals are set but may also have a negative spillover effect to other domains. 1. INTRODUCTION There has been a remarkable proliferation of constitutional rights provi- sions over the past decade. However, when looking at the de facto human ADI LEIBOVITCH is Assistant Professor of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. ALEXANDER STREMITZER is Professor of Law, Economics, and Business at ETH Zurich. The authors are grateful to Kevin Cope, Christoph Engel, Jeffrey Flory, Jens Franken- reiter, Eric Talley, and Mila Versteeg for comments on earlier drafts. We are also grateful to the participants of the 2020 symposium Measuring Impact in Constitutional Law and to seminar audiences at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods in Bonn; ETH Zurich; the University of California, Los Angeles, Law School; the University of Michigan Law School; the 2019 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies; the 2019 Eu- ropean Association of Law and Economics conference; the 2019 Conference on Empirical Studies of Public Law and Human Rights; the 2019 International Conference on Empir- ical Legal Studies (Sichuan University Law School); and the 2019 conference Behavioral Legal Studies: Cognition, Motivation, and Moral Judgment (Hebrew University of Jerusa- lem). We thank Ashly Eckerling, David Gerber, Camille Glaus, Tahel Gruenwald, Henry Kim, Devendra Shintre, and Joris Stemmle for excellent research assistance. We are grate- ful to Stefan Wehrli for his logistical support and advice in running the study using the infrastructure of the Decision Science Laboratory at ETH Zurich and to Serge von Steiger and Lucas Gericke for proofreading the page proofs. [Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 51 (June 2022)1 © 2022 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0047-2530/2022/5102-0014$10.00 427

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most