The Rule of Law in the Reform of Legal Education : Teaching the Legal Mind in Japanese Law Schools

a. The Rule of Law is at the heart of the present legal reform. b. There is an international consensus about basic elements of the Rule of Law. c. Legal methods are central to the Rule of Law. But different legal methods are used to realize the Rule of Law. d. Teaching legal methods, i.e., teaching to think like a lawyer, is at the heart of that which is professional in legal education. e. The present legal reform invites Japanese law schools to teach legal methods

Imagining Judges that Apply Law: How They Might Do It

Judges should apply the law, not make it. That plea appears perennially in American politics. American legal scholars belittle it as a simple-minded demand that is silly and misleading. A glance beyond our shores dispels the notion that the American public is naive to expect judges to apply rather than to make law. American obsession with judicial lawmaking has its price: indifference to judicial law applying. If truth be told, practically we have no method for judges, as a matter of routine, to apply law to facts. Our failure leads American legal scholars to question whether applying law to facts is a necessary feature of civil procedure at all. German civil justice does have a method for routinely applying law to facts. It is called, in German, the Relationstechnik, that is, in English, literally relationship technique. This article introduces it to American lawyers and judges and shows how it helps make German civil justice effective

The New Japanese Law Schools

Japan is in the process of implementing a comprehensive reform of its justice system. At the heart of the reform is a complete overhaul of the system of legal education. The new system is intended to increase substantially the number of lawyers in the country. On April 1, 2004 as many as 72 new law schools are to come into existence. Japanese legal education is shifting from a German-inspired law faculty approach to an American-style law school system. Based on first-hand observations, this article discusses the present and future system of Japanese legal education with reference to its foreign counterparts

The Authoritative Text as Imperative for Comprehensibility of Legislation

(Beitrag 5. Europäisches Symposium zur Verständlichkeit von Rechtsvorschriften des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz) The most understandable of texts is of little use as law if it is not clear that it is authoritative. This is the comparative lesson of this essay. American law is—Americans say—indeterminate. American law is indeterminate because American texts, clear as they may be in wording, often are not authoritative; other texts apply too and may be inconsistent. German law is rarely indeterminate in this sense. This essay identifies in bullet-points some comparative aspects of clarity of American and German law. Why is American law indeterminate? Why is German law not? What, if anything, do these differences counsel for future European Union law? I identify five areas of differences. 1. Legal System and Statutes, 2. Lawmaking. 3. Federalism. 4. Constitutional Review and 5. Law Application

Freedom of Information and the EU Data Protection Directive

Because of advancements in information technology, the tension between protection of privacy and freedom of information has intensified. In the United States this tension is addressed with sector specific laws, like the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Conversely, in Europe, data protection laws of general applicability have existed for two decades. Recently, the Council of Ministers adopted a Common Position in a data protection directive. The Author analyzes specific provisions of the Directive, primarily focusing on the provisions that address the tension between the right of privacy and the free flow of information within the European Union. Ultimately, the Directive strikes a balance between privacy and the free flow of information in three ways. First, the Directive is limited to personal data and does not apply to information about corporate or governmental bodies. Next, the Directive allows Member States to create their own exceptions in certain categories like journalism. Finally, it requires Member States to prohibit processing of racial, ethnic, political, or religious data although allows processing in five enumerated instances

Educating Lawyers Now and Then: Two Carnegie Critiques of the Common Law and the Case Method

In Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has again turned its attention to legal education. Much as it did in the early years of the last century, in the first years of this century in its Preparation for the Professions Program (“PPP”), the Carnegie Foundation is examining professional education generally. In the early twentieth century, the Carnegie Foundation published its first report in law, The Common Law and the Case Method in American University Law Schools, prepared in 1914 by Josef Redlich, an Austrian law professor. The two reports are referred to here as the PPP Legal Education Report and as the Redlich Report respectively. This Article takes three of the four principal themes of the PPP Legal Education Report—the case method, education for practice, and education for the public dimension of law—and contrasts their treatment in the PPP Legal Education Report with that in the Redlich Report. While the two reports are eerily similar, their differences inform us about the course that American legal education took in the last century

Bane of American Forfeiture Law Banished at Last

This article refutes the claimed historical bases for criminal law in rem forfeiture