This phenomenon in some respect is also present in the United where what is encompassed in the realm of the legal education tends to be more focused on domestic law. Indeed, despite the globalization of legal services, comparative law is still not playing a prominent role in law schools’ curriculums. Perhaps it is the diversity of the American legal system with its two levels of jurisdiction (state and federal) that already make the study of national law a complex and somewhat comparative enterprise that discourages students to enroll in courses dedicated to the study of a foreign system of law. Mathias Reimann and many scholars have also blamed parochial attitude and the “the lack of international sophistication of American lawyers for the marginal role of comparative law.” However, it may be more the case that the objectives American scholars have set for themselves with regard to the teaching of this topic are too broad and confusing. Courses in comparative law in the United States aim at tackling too many topics. The following are only the 10 reasons most often cited by Professors to justify engaging in the comparative study of law: Provide foreign models for the improvement of domestic law Promote the international unification (or at least harmonization) of law Reveal the common core of all law Teach basic skills for international legal practice Provide an overview of law on a world-wide scale by introducing the major legal families Acquire some knowledge about certain foreign legal systems Become familiar with foreign rules, concepts, and approaches in order to facilitate communication with foreign lawyers Compare the national system of law with foreign alternatives in order to provide critical perspectives on the domestic legal system Help students understand law as a general phenomenon, in particular its contingency on history, society, politics, and economics
This phenomenon in some respect is also present in the United where what is encompassed in the realm of the legal education tends to be more focused on domestic law. Indeed, despite the globalization of legal services, comparative law is still not playing a prominent role in law schools’ curriculums. Perhaps it is the diversity of the American legal system with its two levels of jurisdiction (state and federal) that already make the study of national law a complex and somewhat comparative enterprise that discourages students to enroll in courses dedicated to the study of a foreign system of law. Mathias Reimann and many scholars have also blamed “the parochial attitude and the lack of international sophistication of American lawyers for the marginal role of comparative law.” However, it may be more the case that the objectives American scholars have set for themselves with regard to the teaching of this topic are too broad and confusing. Courses in comparative law in the United States aim at tackling too many topics. The following are only the 10 reasons most often cited by Professors to justify engaging in the comparative study of law: Provide foreign models for the improvement of domestic law Promote the international unification (or at least harmonization) of law Reveal the common core of all law Teach basic skills for international legal practice Provide an overview of law on a world-wide scale by introducing the major legal families Acquire some knowledge about certain foreign legal systems Become familiar with foreign rules, concepts, and approaches in order to facilitate communication with foreign lawyers Compare the national system of law with foreign alternatives in order to provide critical perspectives on the domestic legal system Help students understand law as a general phenomenon, in particular its contingency on history, society, politics, and economics
Sabrina%20Germain%20Final%20Revised%20Version%20Law%20%26%20Method.docx