ECLIR conducts legal and institutional research on the basis of verifiable sources, explicit analytical criteria and a clear distinction between source material, legal interpretation and research assessment.
These standards provide the general framework for ECLIR audits, legal analyses, research projects and institutional assessments.
Specific publications may include an additional methodological note where their subject matter requires a more detailed explanation of scope, sources, limitations, assessment criteria or comparative method.
ECLIR gives priority to primary and official sources, including legislation, judicial decisions, official institutional documents, parliamentary materials, administrative acts, official registers and statistics. Secondary sources, academic literature, professional commentary and media materials may provide context or identify competing interpretations, but do not replace verification against authoritative sources where those sources are available.
Material findings should, where reasonably possible, be traceable to an identifiable source. ECLIR seeks to preserve the relationship between a research finding and the specific provision, passage, decision, document or record on which it is based. The existence of a source is distinguished from the particular part of that source relied upon in the analysis.
ECLIR distinguishes factual findings, the content of applicable legal rules, interpretation of those rules, institutional or procedural analysis, assessment of compliance and broader research conclusions. Where an issue is subject to significant legal, judicial or doctrinal disagreement, that disagreement should be identified where material to the analysis.
Interpretation is based on the applicable legal framework and the sources relevant to the jurisdiction examined. Depending on the case, this may include the wording and structure of legal provisions, their place within the legal system, case law, general principles of law, legislative history, institutional practice and international or supranational obligations.
Where comparative material is used, its purpose and scope should be identified. Legal rules, institutions and procedures are not assumed to be directly transferable between jurisdictions; constitutional structure, procedure, institutional competence and legal context are considered where they materially affect the comparison.
Research conclusions are assessed in light of the material available at the time of publication. Relevant limitations may include unavailable or unpublished documents, pending proceedings, incomplete institutional data, absence of final reasoning, conflicting official information, unresolved questions of law or restrictions on access to relevant material.
ECLIR may use digital tools to support legal research, source management, document organisation, comparison, monitoring and consistency review. Substantive legal interpretation, evaluation of evidence, resolution of conflicting material and formulation of final research conclusions remain subject to researcher review. Automated processing does not, by itself, constitute a legal conclusion or institutional assessment.
ECLIR publications are treated as identifiable research records. Where appropriate, publications may include a version number, publication date and research status. Material corrections should be identifiable rather than silently incorporated in a way that obscures publication history. New legal or institutional developments may lead to reassessment without altering the historical record of what was previously published.
ECLIR research is intended to be conducted independently of partisan, institutional or commercial interests. Research conclusions are not to be adjusted to obtain a predetermined political, institutional or reputational outcome. A material conflict of interest relating to a specific project should be disclosed where relevant to the credibility or interpretation of the work.
ECLIR may distinguish stages of work through research-status labels: In Progress, Under Review, Published, Monitoring and Reassessment. These labels describe the state of the research record rather than the substantive result of an assessment.
Individual publications may contain a separate methodological note where necessary to specify temporal scope, jurisdictions examined, sources included or excluded, comparative method, evidential limitations, specific assessment criteria, or departures from and additions to the general methodology.
Research standards are reviewed as ECLIR’s research infrastructure and methods develop. Material revisions should be reflected in the publication date or version history of this page.