Defining conceptual law may not necessarily be straightforward, but putting it more simply, the journal considers there to be three main umbrella categories of jurisprudence:
- Conceptual law, meaning the proposal and analysis of ideas and concepts of law, what the law should be.
- Doctrinal law, meaning the proposal and analysis of the exact text and rules of law, how the law should be written and interpreted.
- Empirical law, meaning the study and analysis of the real effects of law, how the law impacts the real world.
While broad, the three categories should help us understand how law can be divided as. Conceptual law decides that there should be a free speech right that can only be limited to prevent NAP violations. Doctrinal law writes the exact text and rules of the free speech right. Empirical law studies how the free speech right impacts society, courts, and so on. And this journal is specifically for conceptual law, meaning we seek what the law ought to be, and what ideas and concepts law can have.
An article proposing that there should be universal citizen standing for judicial review, arguing that limiting standing for it is not desirable on some metric the article decides to use, would be in the journal's scope. An article writing the exact detailed rules of that citizen standing, would not necessarily be, unless the article is primarily about arguing the concept. And the same for empirical studies about the standing rules, unless it leads into a primary argument it on a conceptual level. In essence, what the journal seeks is for an article to at least primarily be about conceptual law, and will not publish articles primarily about doctrine or empirics.