A dataset of deliberation clauses in legal text

Luke Thorburn Oliver Smith Flynn Devine Kyle Redman Eloïse Gabadou Aviv Ovadya

Published 12 Aug 2026

Increasingly, deliberative processes are being institutionalized via statutes, contracts, and other legal documents. We are interested in understanding how to do this well, so have compiled a dataset of real-world examples of clauses used to describe or require deliberative processes.

At the time of writing, the dataset includes 31 examples from around the world — representing every example we could find. We are releasing the dataset to the public domain, and invite contributions to help us keep it up to date. We hope this can be a resource for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners working to institutionalize deliberation, and we present some initial, high-level observations below.

The dataset

Browse the dataset in the interactive table below. You may find it easier to use in fullscreen mode, which you can toggle with the f key.

The dataset is hosted on GitHub, where you can also download it as a JSON file.

View on GitHub View the data as JSON

Summary

Overall, which elements of process design do these legal texts specify, and which do they leave to discretion? And to what extent do they make outcomes of deliberation binding? In short:

Who deliberates (i.e., participant selection) is specified far more tightly than how they deliberate (i.e., process design).
Of these examples, none make the outputs of a deliberative process binding, but some create other forms of commitment (e.g., to run the process, or to respond to the recommendations).

We elaborate on each of these trends below.

Degree of specification

Most of the legal texts specify the high-level details of participant recruitment, including:

# of participants (e.g., “consist of not fewer than 18 and not more than 24 electors”, “is to comprise 160 persons”, “no more than one thousand citizens”);
random selection from a target population (e.g., “Copenhageners selected by stratified lottery”, “selected at random from the entire population over the age of 16 years whose main residence is in Germany”, “drawn by lot from lists designed to give this body access to persons aged 16 to 18 and non-EU foreign residents”); and
dimensions used for stratified sampling (e.g., “gender, age, geographical distribution and level of education”, “balanced representations of genders, official languages of the Brussels-Capital Region and age groups, … geographical balance … and socioeconomic diversity”, “the criteria of age and gender must be taken into account in the selection”).

Most leave the specific mechanics of recruitment to discretion, but there are some exceptions. For example, Baden-Württemberg specifies a sampling pool of at least 1,000 people, GDPR-compliant written invitations, a reply deadline, freedom to decline without giving reasons, and a second draw among those who accept. And for the Brussels Climate Assembly, it is specified that “random drawings are carried out independently and using a technique that ensures the fairness of the selection, the absence of bias in the selection method used and the public nature of the selection algorithm used”.

Details of process design are specified less often. Where they are specified, they tend to be very high-level, including:

duration (e.g., “not fewer than three and not more than five consecutive days for a total of not less than 24 hours”, “citizens deliberate for a period of three to six months”, “the duration of their mandate is one year, renewable once for a period of six months”); and
meeting frequency / schedule (e.g., “shall convene the Plenary in ordinary session at least eight times a year”, “will meet 6 times a year”, “the Assembly meets in plenary once a month”, “meets at least once a year and six months after each revision of the present Constitution”).

A small number specify more granular process design or facilitation details. For example, in Vorarlberg, it must be ensured that “the Citizens’ Council is moderated by one or more independent persons, in adherence to the principle of objectivity, using the Dynamic Facilitation method”. In Tolosa, facilitators must ensure “speaking turns”, “inclusion of all views”, “language rights (including participation in Basque)”, and means to “enable participation for all, including persons with functional diversity”.

Several texts explicitly delegate the details of process design to a separate set of rules or a separate decision-making body, such as:

to parliament’s own rules of procedure (e.g., “Parliament established the framework conditions for the organization of the Citizens’ Dialogue”);
to secondary regulation (e.g., “deliberate engagement practices … must include and address any matters prescribed by the regulations”); or
to the body itself (e.g., “The creation of the Citizens’ Assembly of Paris is approved. From its constitution, it will be called upon to carry out … the adaptation of the Assembly’s rules of procedure. This adaptation will cover the composition of the Assembly, the duration of the mandate and the means of action available to it …”, “citizens’ councils carry out their action in full independence from the public authorities”).

Degree of commitment

None of the existing examples make the outputs or recommendations of a deliberative process binding, but several create other forms of commitment. These include commitments to:

run the process, either:
- for specific decisions (e.g., “a deliberative poll shall be conducted mandatorily to decide the following matters …”, “a community engagement policy must … include deliberative engagement practices which must include and address any matters prescribed by the regulations … and be capable of being applied to the development of the Community Vision, Council Plan, Financial Plan and Asset Plan”);
- at a specific cadence (for examples, see the bullet on meeting frequency in the previous section); or
- when triggered by a petition (e.g., “must be convened if … requested in writing by at least 1,000 eligible citizens, including their names and addresses”, “the Parliament may, on the initiative of citizens … establish a deliberative committee … the suggestion must … be signed by at least 2,000 persons domiciled in the territory of the Walloon Region and aged 16 or over”, “citizen suggestions are admissible if they are signed by at least 1,000 persons aged 16 or over residing in the Brussels-Capital Region”).
consider the recommendations (e.g., “the decision-making authority shall take into account the recommendation based on the results of the deliberative poll”); and
respond to the recommendations (e.g., “within a maximum of 90 days after the issuance of the report of improvement recommendations, the Junta de Gobierno … shall remit a formal response to all the recommendations and, where applicable, an action plan in that regard”, “responsible authorities shall have a time period of two months for processing and responding to an established proposal”).

Some legal texts also explicitly avoid certain commitments, via the word “may”. For example, in Tolosa, the use of random selection is explicitly discretionary (“where the Municipality … deems it appropriate and the topic is of clear public relevance, … deliberation tables may be constituted with citizens selected by lot”). In Brussels and Wallonia, running the process is explicitly discretionary (“the Parliament may, when it deems useful, establish a deliberative committee …”, “the Parliament may, on the initiative of citizens or on the initiative of at least a simple majority of its members, establish a deliberative committee …”).

Similarly, some texts explicitly declare that the process outputs are not binding. For example, in Tolosa, the “debate tables will in no case be decision-making … The final decision will be taken by the Municipal Plenary”. In Baden-Württemberg, the process is “not binding on the responsible bodies”. In Seoul, the “opinions of a jury meeting for citizens’ human rights shall not be binding on the Remedy Committee”. And for Citizens’ Initiative Reviews in Oregon, the statements produced “are NOT official opinions or positions endorsed by the State of Oregon or any government agency” and “are not binding on a court of law”.