International migration law (IML) is famously fragmented, which provides fertile ground for comparative inquiry. However, this task is inhibited the heterodox nature of IML as it draws on a composite body of law that is expressed in different concepts, interpretations and languages. This paper presents network analysis as one useful methodology for navigating IML's normative architecture and empirically mapping case law and its interrelations. Part I introduces network analysis as a data driven method for representing the relationship between variables in a legal network. Part II exemplifies its empirical purchase in the European Court of Human Rights' migration case law. Part III suggests the further added value that arises for a comparative migration law by bringing into scope authoritative judicial practice across wider data sets. Part IV concludes reflexively by asking what unravelling the web of IML might reveal for a field always caught between universalist and relativist theoretical narratives.

International migration law (IML) is famously fragmented, which provides fertile ground for comparative inquiry. However, this task inhibits the heterodox nature of IML as it draws on a composite body of law that is expressed in different concepts, interpretations and languages. This paper presents ne o k anal i a one ef l me hodolog fo na iga ing IML no ma i e architecture and empirically mapping case law and its interrelations. Part I introduces network analysis as a data driven method for representing the relationship between variables in a legal network. Part II exemplifies its empirical purchase in the European Court of Human Rights' migration case law. Part III suggests the further added value that arises for a comparative migration law by bringing into scope authoritative judicial practice across wider data sets. Part IV concludes reflexively by asking what unravelling the web of IML might reveal for a field always caught between universalist and relativist theoretical narratives.