当普通法老去：美国司法意见中两个世纪以来日益增长的惯性
When Common Law Ages: Two Centuries of Growing Inertia in US Judicial Opinions
AI总结：
本研究通过分析1800-2000年400万份美国法院判决，发现司法颠覆性随时间下降、先例约束增强，其动因包括先例过载与司法极化，同时高权威法院仍通过顶层干预塑造法律发展，拓展了法学研究的理论视角。
摘要：
曾被认为合理的司法意见会随着时间推移失去现实意义。然而，学界一直缺乏对司法推理演变方式的系统性、大规模认知。本研究分析了1800年至2000年间的400万份美国法院判决，量化了每一项裁决的颠覆性，即裁决打破既有引用路径的程度。研究发现，这类路径突破行为随时间推移不断减少，表明法院愈发受到先例的约束。这种日益增长的惯性由两个结构性因素驱动：一是先例过载，体现为判例法数量的增长速度超过人口增长（标度指数为1.7）；二是司法系统内部意识形态极化的加剧，这种极化带来制度层面的不确定性，促使法官更遵从既有先例。尽管整体呈现路径依赖趋势，仍有少数权威性较高的法院通过自上而下的干预持续塑造法律话语体系。本研究将法律推理重构为一个受结构性增长、制度记忆和层级结构塑造的演化过程，把更广泛的创新理论与组织适应理论纳入法学研究范畴。
英文摘要：
Judicial opinions once considered sound can lose relevance over time. Yet, little has been known, both systematically and at scale, about how judicial reasoning has evolved. Here, we analyze four million US court decisions from 1800 to 2000, quantifying each rulings' disruptiveness, i.e., the extent to which it breaks from established citation pathways. We find that such pathbreaks have declined over time, indicating that courts have become increasingly constrained by precedent. This growing inertia appears to be driven by two structural factors. The first is precedent overload, evidenced by the volume of case law outpacing population growth (scaling exponent of 1.7). The second is the rise of ideological polarization within the judiciary, which introduces institutional uncertainty that prompts greater deference to established precedent. Despite this overall tendency toward path dependence, we find that a relatively small number of high-authority courts continue to shape legal discourse through top-down interventions. Our findings recast legal reasoning as an evolutionary process shaped by structural growth, institutional memory, and hierarchical structure, incorporating broader theories of innovation and organizational adaptation into the study of law.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
