Jurisprudence in hard and soft law output of international organizations: a network analysis of the use of precedent in UN Security Council and general assembly resolutions

Do hard law international organizations use jurisprudence differently than soft law ones? Precedent can be asset or an encumbrance to international organizations and their members, depending on their aims and on the policy area. Linking current decisions to previously-agreed ones helps to increase cohesion, facilitate consensus among members, and borrow authority - benefits that might be more necessary for some organizations than for others. To compare whether the features of norm-producing organizations correlate with their preference for jurisprudence, we compare two organs from the United Nations system: the Security Council, which produces binding decisions, and the General Assembly, which delivers soft law resolutions. We explore the citation networks formed by the approximately 20,400 resolutions adopted by each organ between 1946 and 2019 to test their differences with regards to the dynamics of citation formation, concentration of citations, and timing. Descriptive results reveal the main periods of jurisprudential activity by the Security Council and the General Assembly, but find no sizeable difference in their overall rate of precedent usage. We apply the Citation Exponential Random Graph Model (cERGM) to test for network determinants of citations and find additional similarities on transitivity and homophily, but also variations regarding preferential attachment.