Theoretical and methodological problem

The project delves into the theoretical and methodological challenges involved in comparing the concept of the Rule of Law with an alternative legal-political model, namely, Populist Authoritarianism.

The research initially focuses on defining the content of both models, highlighting three main issues: the composition of the elements that constitute them, the interpretation of individual principles (such as the separation of powers or judicial impartiality), and the application of these concepts to specific cases, where expert consensus is often lacking. On a methodological level, the project aims to identify the terms associated with each model and then measure the cognitive load required to process them.

This empirical investigation involved translating complex concepts into lists of terms – a process which, while simplifying, revealed unexpected connections and heuristic insights. The project emphasises that the issue of cognitive load is inherently open to empirical treatment, setting its approach apart from prototypical forms of experimental jurisprudence.

Term Listing

Analytical Philosophy and Empirical Research

Paternalism and Nudge

Theoretical research

The research aimed to construct a theoretical model of the Rule of Law by identifying invariant elements and “conceptual atoms” useful for its definition, alongside the alternative legal-political model of Populist Authoritarianism. A method of reflective equilibrium was adopted, combining top-down theoretical insights with empirical input gathered from research group members, seminar speakers, and anonymous expert questionnaires.

To define the alternative model, the project analysed the discourse of leading critics of the Rule of Law (e.g. Putin, Orban, Salvini, Trump) and supporting theoretical texts, using artificial intelligence to count term occurrences. A key challenge that emerged was the presence of shared terms (such as democracy, identity, freedom, powers) across both models. These were initially removed from the term lists but have been earmarked for future cognitive load analysis, through the creation of contextualised sentences exploring their use in different discursive settings.

Interviews

A central component of the theoretical investigation was the construction of a model of the Rule of Law and of an alternative model to it, with the aim of identifying which concepts and terms could be associated with each. To this end, we conducted interviews with legal theorists and experts on the Rule of Law, asking them the following three questions:

1. How would you define the Rule of Law, and what do you consider to be its core elements?
2. In what ways can the Rule of Law enter into crisis?
3. What other models of state sovereignty would you consider as alternatives to the Rule of Law?