Reimann, Mathias W.

English

PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibrary

Penn State International Law ReviewVolume 24Number 4 Penn State International Law Review Article 125-1-2006Two Approaches to Internationalizing theCurriculum: Some CommentsMathias W. ReimannFollow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilrThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Penn State International LawReview by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact ram6023@psu.edu.Recommended CitationReimann, Mathias W. (2006) "Two Approaches to Internationalizing the Curriculum: Some Comments," Penn State International LawReview: Vol. 24: No. 4, Article 12.Available at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr/vol24/iss4/12Two Approaches to Internationalizing theCurriculum: Some CommentsMathias W. Reimann*One might say that there are two basic approaches tointernationalizing the first year curriculum: one may be called theintegration model, the other the separation model. Both have advantagesand disadvantages.The first approach introduces a "global" perspective in the first-yearcurriculum by presenting occasional comparative, international ortransnational perspectives in all (or at least most of) the courses in apiecemeal fashion. This forces (first-year) law students to becomeconscious of the legal world beyond the domestic orbit. In a sense, thisis an ideal approach because it teaches them to think beyond U.S.-boundaries at the most formative stage of their legal education, i.e., at atime when they can easily learn to accept foreign and international law asa normal part of their professional toolkit. The problem is that thisapproach is relatively difficult to implement. In order to pursue it in anorganized fashion, the whole first-year faculty must be on board, and thattends to be a relatively large and heterogeneous group. At least some ofits members will have no particular interest in, not to mention knowledgeof, global perspectives and will thus cooperate at best reluctantly. Unlessthe dean is strong (or outright overbearing), keeping this group togethercan be like herding cats and requires constant vigilance against open orclandestine defection. This approach also requires a set of materialswhich present comparative or international perspectives in up to half-a-dozen different contexts. These materials need to be coordinated in orderto avoid redundancies and, ideally, to provide a variety ofcomplementary perspectives. At least in this regard, the start-up costsare high. Finally, such an approach inevitably remains fragmentary inthe sense that it does not convey any coherent picture-neither of foreignlegal systems and cultures nor of the international order. Students learn alittle bit of this and little bit of that and, arguably, nothing in any depth or* Mathias Reimann, Hessel E. Yntema Professor of Law, University of Michigan;Dr. iur. University of Freiburg (Germany) 1982; LL.M. University of Michigan (1983).PENN STATE INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEWbreadth. Still, as a consciousness-raising enterprise, it can be a veryeffective way to show students how comparative and internationalperspectives can matter in virtually every context, particularly wherestudents would never have expected them to come into play.The second approach, which we have pursued at Michigan, is tocreate a separate introductory course which provides an overview of theworld legal order, and then to make such a course mandatory. Thisallows the students to see the larger picture, to recognize connections,patterns, and general features of transnational law. It is easier toimplement because it counts only on the international component of thefaculty which has more expertise and can be expected to engage withconviction, if not enthusiasm, in such an enterprise. In other words, itmakes it relatively simple to round up the usual suspects. Fewer playersalso ensure fewer coordination problems, and once the course isinstituted, it can run almost on auto-pilot (as it does now at Michigan).In addition, it requires only one set of teaching materials, and once theyare created, they can be used by all teachers and over long periods oftime, provided they are updated at regular intervals. Yet, this model hastwo major downsides. First, it separates the comparative andinternational materials from the rest of the course-work; to be sure, therewill be plenty of interplay with domestic and foreign or internationallegal materials and issues, but global perspectives still appear in aseparate course, i.e., outside the more standard topics. Second, it isdifficult to avoid sliding into teaching simply a watered-down version ofthe traditional (public) international law course. As a result, one mustmake every effort to include private international and comparative lawmaterials. After all, most of our graduates do not work for the StateDepartment but in private practice. They need basic knowledge notabout treaty making, the UN Security Council or the laws of war andpeace but about international business transactions, litigation, and trade.The two models also differ as to when they best fit into thecurriculum. The integration model is ideally suited for the first yearalthough it need not be limited to it. Upper-class courses can (andshould) also contain comparative and international perspectives, and insome areas, such as corporations, antitrust, or intellectual property,limiting the syllabus strictly to domestic materials borders on educationalmalpractice under modem conditions. Still, students best absorbcomparative and international law thinking when they are fully engagedin learning the ropes in the traditional subject matter areas of the firstyear-discussing procedural regimes without civil juries makes thegreatest impression when the American jury is under consideration, andinternational human rights come into sharpest relief when compared tothe Bill of Rights jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court. The[Vol. 24:42006] Two APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONALIZING THE CURRICULUM 807separation model, however, is not necessarily best realized in the firstyear. At Michigan, the course is mandatory but can be taken any timebefore graduation. After more than five years of experience with it, wetend to think that students may be better off to take it in the first semesterof their second year. This is mainly because learning about the worldlegal order is easier, and makes more sense, on the basis of a somewhatdeeper understanding of one's own legal system. Even here, the learningexperience is (inevitably) comparative but it is so in a much broaderfashion, e.g., by comparing the domestic legal order to the internationalone, a treaty to a statute, or the role of judicial decisions in internationalversus domestic law, and first-year students mostly lack sufficientbackground knowledge and understanding effectively to make suchbroad comparisons. In addition, first-year students already have theirhands (and heads) full with the traditional courses, and forcing them tokeep yet another ball in the air runs the risk that they will drop it. Thus,we now encourage students to take the mandatory Transnational Lawcourse after the first year unless they have some background ininternational studies or are sure that they want to make comparative andinternational law the main focus of their legal education. Currently,about half of our students take the course as their first-year elective, theother half enroll in it later. Of course, one problem with that situation isthe challenge of teaching the course to a mixture of first-year and upper-class students with different levels of sophistication and backgroundknowledge.In pursuing either model, we must be sensitive to the students'capacity to absorb new material. The first year is certainly very full as itis and adding comparative and international perspectives becomescounterproductive if students experience it as an unreasonable burden.In a similar fashion, adding a mandatory course entails the risk that theyfeel overwhelmed and thus resentful. It is true that we can sell globalperspectives to today's students more easily than in the past and that weshould do so openly and with conviction but we should make every effortto minimize the cost. Plainly, something has to give, be it the traditionalcoverage of the first-year courses or the freedom of choice in the upper-class curriculum. We must also never forget that, at least for the timebeing, our primary responsibility is to train American lawyers inAmerican law. Comparative and international perspectives are anecessary ingredient in today's legal education but they should not takecenter-stage and push domestic law to the margin. The (domestic as wellas foreign) market still mostly requires American lawyers with a globalunderstanding rather than global lawyers with some American lawbackground.While the choice between the two models mentioned (or hybrids orPENN STATE INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEWother alternatives, like the Georgetown "Week One" approach) must bewell-considered, it is ultimately of secondary importance. The mostimportant thing is to take action. After many AALS meetings in the lastdecade, at which we have discussed these matters ad nauseam, we mustactually do something in the classroom. Fortunately, actual progress isfinally being made as at least a handful of law schools are addingmandatory global perspectives to their curriculum, and there is reason tobelieve that others will soon follow their lead.Let me add one final consideration. I often hear from colleaguesthat they feel too unsure of their own expertise and skill to plunge intoforeign or international law. This is understandable, and I do not want tobelittle such concerns. Yet, doubts about one's own proper training andarguments against superficiality often ring hollow and sound like mereexcuses. Let us admit it: we rarely have scruples of that sort in othercontexts. Torts professors dabble in economic analysis of law without aPh.D. in economics and discuss efficiency goals merely on the basis ofhaving read some Calabresi and Posner; constitutional law teachers waxeloquent on political theories which they rarely understand more thansuperficially; and criminal law instructors discuss problems of moralresponsibility without any erudition in moral philosophy. To be sure,comparative and international law are full of pitfalls, but they are notrocket science, and with a little help from their foreign-trained andinternationally-oriented friends on the faculty (and elsewhere), mostacademic teachers will be able to do a reasonably good job. A professormust, of course, be honest about his or her limits but often the bestteaching results from exploring new terrain jointly with the students.Here, as elsewhere, he or she will learn from experience, and thatincludes from mistakes, both one's own and those of others. Nor is it anexcuse for inertia that we want to avoid merely superficial understandingon the part of our students. It is true, of course, that a little knowledge isdangerous thing but it is even more true that complete ignorance isworse.[Vol. 24:4

Two Approaches to Internationalizing the Curriculum: Some Comments

https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1686&context=psilr

Two Approaches to Internationalizing the Curriculum: Some Comments

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibrary