I came across the following series of recent panels on comparative law, part of the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Comparative Law, on Youtube:
- Panel One: The Basic Comparative Law Course Today
This session addressed the objectives and contents of the basic course
in comparative law. Doing so forces one to confront the fundamental
questions of why students should study comparative law and whether there
is an essential core to the field of which any serious student should
be aware. Is the goal of comparative law to examine differences and
similarities in discrete subjects of private and/or public law from
which students might better understand the competing policies and rule
choices in specific fields? Or, is the goal to understand competing
legal systems and underlying modes of thought (e.g., common law, civil
law, and non-Western traditions, such as Islamic law) from which might
flow discussions of the underlying nature of law and legal order? Or, is
the essential core to understand the methods by which scholars in
different legal systems can compare one with another (as well as the
inherent limitations on such comparisons)? How should the objectives of
the course change in the future, and how should basic courses in
comparative law change in to meet these goals?
The session addressed the proliferation of comparative subject-specific
courses (such as comparative constitutional law), as well as the
proliferation of foreign law courses (e.g., China law), which are not
strictly comparative, but which may achieve some of the objectives of a
comparative law course. In many schools, these courses form the bulk, or
even the entire, comparative law curriculum. What are the promises and
perils of this expansion and fragmentation of the comparative law
curriculum? Can subject and nation-specific courses effectively expose
students to foundational concepts in comparative law so as to serve as a
substitute for a core course? If an important utility of comparative
law is to better understand specific areas of law, should comparative
law become a pervasive feature of the law school curriculum by
introducing comparative law materials into traditional courses (such as
constitutional, criminal and corporate law), rather than as separate
comparative law electives.
This session moved beyond the study of comparative laws and legal
systems as such and asked whether students can truly understand
comparative laws and legal systems without immersion into the broader
cultural framework within which laws and legal systems operate, and, if
not, to consider the curricular implications. For example, can
comparative law be fully understood without reading materials in the
language of other nations, and if not, should part of the comparative
law curriculum include instruction in languages other than English?
More broadly, what is the place of historical and sociological
background in comparative law courses? How important is it for students
to understand the role of law in a particular culture and attitudes
towards law within that culture? How do the cultural differences with
regard to law affect negotiations or transactions? Does introducing
foreign languages and cultural frameworks move beyond the competence of a
law school, or might there be significant advantage found in using a
broadly conceived comparative law curriculum as a wedge to develop
intercultural competence for attorneys expected to practice in an era of
increasing globalization? Let me know if there's more out there.
No comments:
Post a Comment