To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
It has long been known that undergraduate research can also be beneficial in legal studies, not least for underrepresented students (cf. Hathaway et al., 2002). However, legal education has a special and – in contrast to most other disciplines – a country-specific relationship to research-based learning at undergraduate as well as at postgraduate level. The modalities and space for designing research-based learning courses depend largely on the respective subjects and methods of research. In jurisprudence, however, these vary considerably depending on the characteristics of the respective jurisdiction and its legal system.
New Private Law Theory (“NPLT”) offers itself as almost a natural fit for legal education and in particular—I argue—legal education in the climate crisis. Yet, the world climate hardly features in the book and its impressive resource list. Without claiming to fill any existing gaps in the book, the Article seeks to articulate NPLT’s relevance to sustainable legal education and at the same time tease out what facing the, social, fact of the climate crisis would add to NPLT’s already rich framework.
Hong Kong society has put family-friendly workplace policies under serious discussion, but the investigation of the views of employers remains insufficient. Adopting the structure-agency paradigm, this study used survey data to examine how structural constraints in business and the subjective world of individual employers influence their support to paid family leave. We found that industry categories were significantly associated with employers’ support but not the size of their enterprises. Employers’ personal stereotypes of family caregivers and their awareness of relevant laws did not exert significant independent effects on their policy support, but the significant interaction of the two suggested that employers with knowledge of regulations were less likely to formulate attitudes towards paid family leave based on their own stereotypes. Policy practices therefore need to consider the rationality of employers in the local contexts of Hong Kong, and aim to integrate legal education with de-stigmatisation of family caregivers in advocacy programs.
This Special Issue highlights the most recent socio-legal research related to the mitigation, if not the elimination, of the threat of anthropogenic disasters in Asia and beyond. The drafts of these papers were originally presented at the Presidential Session on “The Anthropocene and the Law in Asia” at the Fourth Asian Law and Society Association (ALSA) Conference held in the vibrant city of Osaka, Japan in December 2019. The timing of this particular session, the first of its kind to be held at an ALSA Conference, turned out to be somewhat prophetic, in that two anthropogenic catastrophes—the historic zoonotic pandemic and the cataclysmic wild bushfires—had just begun to strike in December in Wuhan, China and in New South Wales, Australia, respectively. The novel coronavirus pandemic would kill more than 1 million people in the following months, after infecting more than 40 million across the globe. The Australian wild bushfires killed and displaced more than 3 billion animals, becoming the worst wildfire ever recorded in the world. Since that last ALSA Conference in December 2019, multiple anthropogenic disasters have hit various regions in Asia and across the world. The papers in this Special Issue examine various impacts of anthropogenic disasters and propose innovative socio-legal strategies to mitigate them. Included are arguments for the proposal of new legal education curricula and innovative pedagogy on environmental law and the exploration of an international multidisciplinary teaching framework in reconsidering and reshaping human-centric legal education. Also proposed is the development of a robust Earth Jurisprudence based on the adoption of the Rights of Nature principles, while moving away from the Euro-American exploitive view of nature as commodified properties. Additionally proposed is the establishment of a land-based, topological jurisprudence that incorporates the nuanced narratives of indigenous voices in dealing with the threat of human-induced ecological and environmental disasters in the years ahead.
The scale and urgency of the consequences of the Anthropocene for human civilization call for comprehensive responses from human societies. As leaders in law, law schools have a role in helping their respective societies respond to the impacts of the Anthropocene. The present analysis discusses potential approaches to help law schools in Asia integrate the Anthropocene into their legal education curricula. Drawing upon existing legal education literature regarding issues of content, teaching tools, curriculum placement, and subject status as a law topic, the analysis explores the potential issues facing law schools in the adoption of the Anthropocene as a component of learning. The analysis then addresses the particular contextual sociocultural, economic, and political circumstances likely to challenge the integration of the Anthropocene into Asian law schools. The conclusion finishes with directions for future research.
Law schools flourished in the Byzantine Empire at the beginning of the Middle Ages, notably in Constantinople and Beirut. They taught, in Latin, the law of the Roman Empire, which also regulated the affairs of the Church (see Chapter 9). The reign of Justinian (527–65) brought the new compilations of law later known collectively as the Corpus iuris civilis (see Chapter 13) and soon also a shift of the language of instruction to Greek. Legal education, including teaching of eastern canon law, continued practically as long as the Empire survived, and beyond, producing notable scholars of canon law, such as John Zonaras (fl. early twelfth century) and Theodore Balsamon (d. after 1195) (see Chapter 9).
By 2020 law firms will be faced with a “tipping point” for a new talent strategy. Now is the time for all law firms to commit to becoming AI-ready by embracing a growth mindset, set aside the fear of failure and begin to develop internal AI practices.1
This chapter challenges the representations of international law that dominate the turn to history. The vision of international law as metaphysically grounded and of lawyers as scholastics or moralising judges is resonant because it shores up a familiar fantasy. Yet that vision bears little relation to the ways in which contemporary international lawyers use the past in the practice of making legal arguments. This chapter explores the indeterminacy and capaciousness of the past materials out of which international legal arguments are assembled and the varied roles lawyers are trained to adopt in making such arguments. It shows that international lawyers are already immersed in a centuries-long debate over the grounds of law’s authority, into which historicising techniques and anti-metaphysical approaches have long been incorporated. Many influential forms of international legal thought, including legal realism, positivism, critical legal studies, and game theory, have been informed by an anti-metaphysical orientation. Far from being a revolutionary insight, the claim that historicising a text can settle its meaning is just one of many claims that are already part of the broader argumentative world of international lawyers, and no more likely than any other to resolve interpretative controversies or offer the truth of legal history.
This paper takes as its context the decision of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in England and Wales to abandon before the event regulation of lower court trial advocacy. Although solicitors will continue to acquire rights of audience on qualification, they will no longer be required to undertake training or assessment in witness examination, by contrast with other, competing, legal professions. Their opportunities to acquire competence outside the classroom will remain limited. The paper first explores this context and its implications for the three key factors of rights to perform, competence and regulatory accountability. The current regulatory system is then displayed as a Hohfeldian network of rights and duties held in tension between stakeholders intended to inhibit the incompetent exercise of rights to conduct trial advocacy. The SRA's proposal weakens this tension field and threatens the competitive position of solicitors. The paper therefore finally offers a radical alternative reconceptualisation of rights of audience in terms of Waldron's ‘responsibility rights’ as a solution, albeit one with significant implications for the individual advocate. This model, applicable globally, is closer to notions of societal good and professionalism than to those of the competitive market, whilst inhibiting incompetent performance and remediating the SRA's approach.
This brief paper is an account of Peter Fitzpatrick's appointment to the Faculty of Law at Queens University, Belfast, and his consequent transformation, personally and professionally, during his short tenure at Queens.
We begin our data analysis in Chapter 5, which empirically links our broad predictive theory of the judicial tug of war to the nation’s courts. This chapter examines the federal courts, the most politically important courts in the entire American judiciary. As we show in this chapter, fights over federal courts appointments illustrate the tense tug of war between the national bar and politicians. Given that federal courts appointments operate with the advice and consent of the US Senate, an elected body whose political leanings do not dovetail with the bar’s, we expect to see (and we document using empirical data) an ideological divergence. In the last decade, this divergence manifests itself in a federal judiciary that is substantially more conservative than is the national bar. As we show, this also creates supply-side incentives among legal elites. Specifically, conservative graduates of elite law programs have a much higher probability of becoming a judge (of any kind); their relative scarcity in law schools and in the academy, furthermore, has increased the importance of conservative-leaning legal associations, such as the Federalist Society.
The opening chapter introduces the main thesis that the book expounds: Holmes articulated in “The Path of the Law” his theory of legal education. His approach to legal education reflected his ideas worked out in scholarship and in practice, on the nature of law and the best ways to advance legal knowledge. The chapter further explains the structure of the book, both as a work of intellectual history and legal theory.
In this unique book, Alexander Lian, a practicing commercial litigator, advances the thesis that the most famous article in American jurisprudence, Oliver Wendell Holmes's “The Path of the Law,” presents Holmes's leading ideas on legal education. Through meticulous analysis, Lian explores Holmes's fundamental ideas on law and its study. He puts “The Path of the Law” within the trajectory of Holmes's jurisprudence, from earliest scholarship to The Common Law to the occasional pieces Holmes wrote or delivered after joining the U.S. Supreme Court. Lian takes a close look at the reactions “The Path of the Law” has evoked, both positive and negative, and restates the essay's core teachings for today's legal educators. Lian convincingly shows that Holmes's “theory of legal study” broke down artificial barriers between theory and practice. For contemporary legal educators, Stereoscopic Law reformulates Holmes's fundamental message that the law must been seen and taught three-dimensionally.
Under the headings of “Rechtssoziologie” in Germany and “sociolegal studies” in the UK, scholarly traditions have developed that relate law to its social environment. This Article identifies key stages in the development the subject took in both countries and the directions of travel. Comparable milestones were passed, and directions were taken in Germany and the UK. This includes the institutionalization of the subject along the lines of programmatic texts; becoming part of university education; and the establishment of research institutes, academic associations, and specialized journals. The development tells us something beyond sociology of law or sociolegal studies, namely about the relation of law and sociology, the parent disciplines themselves, as well as about academic studies and professional and institutional practice. However, in contrast to the UK, there is still more of a distance between the sociology of law and jurisprudence in Germany.
This Chapter questions whether there is a “doctrine” of proportionality. By “doctrine,” a way of dealing with problems across a range of problems. Using the country studies presented in this book, the chapter identifies a number of reasons for thinking that there is – and perhaps cannot be – such a doctrine. First, the components of proportionality are elements in any reasoned explanation for an outcome in a constitutional case; as a result, “hints” of proportionality analysis in cases not using its structured version may not in fact illustrate proportionality analysis at all. Second, courts allocate different analytic methods to different domains; as a result, proportionality analysis and categorical analysis co-exist in the system as a whole. Third, something like a categorical analysis is likely to appear at the “less restrictive alternatives” stage of proportionality analysis. Finally, even systems committed to proportionality analysis might find themselves eventually adopting some categorical rules as a means of achieving better results overall than proportionality would produce directly. The Chapter concludes with some observations about the role that structural, educational, and political contexts play in the choice between categorical and proportionality analysis.
This paper presents the findings of the first empirical study of the experiences of young lawyers who have entered an increasingly uncertain profession following a highly competitive education and recruitment process. These ‘millennial lawyers’ are framed by a narrative of ‘difference’. This ‘difference’ is commonly articulated negatively and as a challenge to organisational and professional norms. However, our findings suggest a more complex reality. In its synthesis of work on structure and agency, with the temporal focus required by generational sociology, this paper advances an original approach to the analysis of organisational and professional change within contemporary legal practice. Drawing on new empirical research, it demonstrates that although our sample shares many field-level expectations, there is also considerable stress, unhappiness and discomfort. This is generated by a complex interaction between the lawyers’ expectations of practice, and the structuring properties of the field. Thus, the capacity for organisational and professional change is more comprehensively understood within a temporal frame. This paper challenges academic and professional paradigms of generational change within the legal field. It concludes with recommendations for legal educators and the profession which foreground the complexity of millennial lawyers’ expectations of practice.
Most agree that lawyers of the future will need a greater understanding of how technology can be used to design and deliver legal services. The issue for those involved in setting content for any route to qualification is defining the extent to which this must be regulated, as much as identifying the right level of technological capability. The issue is not merely one of content, but the acquisition of competences. Any accreditation must look beyond simply ensuring capability in relation to discrete tools, looking instead to ensure that future solicitors have the ability to adapt to new technologies. Separately, consideration has to be given to the emerging profession of legal technologists. Whilst some technologists may be legally qualified, those that are not must understand the ethical boundaries and regulatory requirements that lawyers work within. The organisation of the legal profession and the regulatory boundaries shared between various stakeholders require us to consider whether accreditation is the right way forward, where responsibility for accreditation should lie and who should take initiative in this space. This chapter explores these issues by contrasting the approach adopted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in England and Wales with that of the Law Society of Scotland.
Today, technology is driving disruptive change in the legal profession and the public is demanding lawyers offer more value and choice in how legal services are delivered. Given these pressures, tomorrow’s legal profession will be fundamentally different from the profession we know today. Against this backdrop, this chapter argues the next generation of lawyers need at least five categories of multidimensional knowledge and skills: collaboration; design; project management; problem-solving; and lifelong learning. The prevailing, traditional legal education model was not designed to teach these multidimensional skills. This chapter describes some of traditional legal education’s deficiencies, introduces the pedagogy of problem-based learning, and advocates a particular form of this pedagogy: project-based learning that involves real clients or community partners. Through project-based learning – a student-centred, active, and experiential learning model – students learn the fundamentals of law and legal practice while gaining the multidimensional knowledge and skills needed to navigate disruptive change. Project-based learning can prepare law students to actively shape the future of the profession – as opposed to merely reacting to change – by harnessing technology and interdisciplinary insights to improve legal systems and create better legal service models for the public.
The field of dispute resolution has long been at the forefront of modernising legal education. Continuing this tradition, this chapter presents findings from an evaluation of an exercise introduced into the core law school curriculum at Monash University in Australia. In our compulsory litigation and dispute resolution units, we built an experiential exercise in which students resolved a dispute using both an online dispute resolution (ODR) platform and more traditional face-to-face mediation role-play. Students completed a short survey about their experience of the portal (n=64, response rate 30 per cent) and provided their reflective journals about the exercise for analysis (n=55). Drawing on the findings, we consider the benefits and limitations of this approach for facilitating students’ exposure to ODR. We explore themes including student understanding of ODR’s impacts on dispute processes and outcomes; appropriate conduct in dispute resolution settings; and the challenges of computer-mediated communication. We also identify means by which experiential activities can draw students’ attention to power disparities and access to justice challenges in ODR to develop their critical thinking about the rapid developments in this field.