Wissenschaftsrat in Wonderland

Had the German Wissenschaftsrat hired an advertising agency to extol the virtues and challenges of German legal education at the dawn of the 21st century, the publicist could hardly have done a more positive job than the Wissenschaftsrat itself. Its report signals that all is remarkably well with the state of legal education and research in Germany: there are more chairs than ever, and those chairs attract more research funding than ever before. German legal scholarship is internationalizing, and coming to terms with the increasing juridification of society and deformalization of law. All is great. Of course, all could be ... continue reading

Expanding the Legal Curriculum: Rethinking the Teaching of Law

What is striking to an outsider about the focus of German legal scholarship is the extent to which it centres on a canonical and dogmatic approach to the interpretation of law. This emerges very clearly from the report prepared by the German Council of Science and Humanities and translated under the auspices of the programme Rechtskulturen. At the same time, there is recognition of the need to develop legal scholarship beyond these frames of reference to engage law in a wider system of higher education and academic research. This not only requires a rethinking of the curricular design to allow ... continue reading

Courage to be wrong, or education to get it right? A response to Michaela Hailbronner

Michaela Hailbronner makes important arguments in her informed and carefully balanced post. I agree with much of what she says. I just think the main problem of interdisciplinarity in Germany is not lack of courage. It is lack of expertise. Much of her analysis strikes me as sound. I would agree that many US law professors have few scruples to write on topics and in areas about which they know very little. But regardless of whether one finds that refreshing or annoying, I do not think it is a relevant factor in the creation of scholarly knowledge. I also think ... continue reading

On the courage to be wrong

The debate on the Wissenschaftsrat-Report has quickly turned into one about the comparative advantages of German doctrinal vs. US interdisciplinary legal scholarship and education. This is not surprising because much of the Report reads like a recommendation to go further down the American path, while at the same time still taking doctrine seriously – very seriously indeed. In taking this ›middle path‹, the authors seek to take the best of what are two very different academic worlds. This effort is admirable, but I am skeptical about its prospects. The attempt itself stems, I think, from a deeper dilemma that has ... continue reading

Free Trade in Legal Scholarship?

I want to decline Rob Howse’s invitation to talk about my own residual anxieties, because he introduces another more interesting theme into the debate: whether scholarship can actually be traded between countries. He suggests that such trade exists, though apparently only in one direction: »It is not as if Americans are going to buy their doctrinal scholarship from Germany […]; on the other hand, some forms of interdisciplinary scholarship from the US may well be exportable to Germany.« But it was not always so. There was a time, prior to World War I, when many Americans were indeed eager to ... continue reading

Die verfolgte Unschuld vom Lande oder: Warum es keines »Grundrechts auf Diskriminierung« bedarf

In einem Beitrag für die FAZ vom 21. Februar 2014 schreibt Christian Hillgruber einen aufregenden Satz: „In den westlichen Gesellschaften sind es mittlerweile schon weniger die Homosexuellen als vielmehr diejenigen, die Homosexualität für moralisch fragwürdig und homosexuelle Praxis für anstößig halten, deren Freiheit, anders zu denken und in Übereinstimmung mit ihrer inneren Überzeugung zu leben, gefährdet erscheint.“ Diese Äußerung Hillgrubers spricht eigentlich für sich selbst – achselzuckend ließe sich zur Tagesordnung übergehen. Besonders an dem Beitrag in der FAZ ist allerdings die Tatsache, dass da ein Bonner Staatsrechtslehrer quasi ex cathedra ein „Grundrecht auf Diskriminierung“ fordert für eine homophobe Minderheit, die angeblich gerade wegen dieser Minderheiteneigenschaft geschützt werden müsse. In solchem Falle ist es vorzugswürdig und notwendig, in aller Öffentlichkeit einer Auffassung entgegenzutreten, die sich als autoritative Experten-Meinung geriert.

Schweizer Bundesgericht: „Sauausländer“ ist nicht diskriminierend

Wenn ein Polizist einen des Taschendiebstahls verdächtigen Algerier bei seiner Festname lauthals als „Drecksasylant“ und „Sauausländer“ beschimpft, dann ist das vielleicht böse, gemein und beleidigend, aber eins ist es nicht: eine Diskriminierung. Zu diesem, um es mal vorsichtig zu formulieren, kontraintuitiven Schluss kommt das Schweizerische Bundesgericht in einem gestern veröffentlichten Urteil, das dem jüngst so markant in die Welt gesetzten Bild der Schweiz als eines Landes, in dem man sich ohne lupenreine eidgenössische Abstammungscredentials nicht allzu wohl fühlen soll, noch eine weitere Facette hinzufügen dürfte. Das Schweizer Strafgesetzbuch droht jedem, der andere „wegen ihrer Rasse, Ethnie oder Religion in einer ... continue reading

Beyond curricular design: why internationalisation matters in legal education

A few years ago, a New York Times editorial declared: »American legal education is in crisis«! It sounds dramatic and exceptional, but actually quite often, and almost everywhere, there is a feeling that legal education is not going well. When I was a law student at the University of São Paulo, in the early 1990s, legal education reform was on the agenda; as a law professor at the same university, almost 25 years later, I keep hearing similar anxieties about this issue. In this context, the document delivered by the German Council of Science and Humanities (hereafter, »the Council« or ... continue reading

Vom Recht, auf die Mehrdeutigkeit des Gesetzes vertrauen zu können

Der Gesetzgeber sagt, was das Gesetz ist. Sollte man meinen. Ist aber nicht so. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat heute einen Senatsbeschluss veröffentlicht, der in Berlin und anderenorts mal wieder für allerhand Zahnschmelzabrieb sorgen dürfte. Es geht um die Frage, ob der Gesetzgeber klarstellen darf, wie er seine eigenen Worte verstanden wissen will, wenn es in Praxis und Justiz Verwirrung um dieselben gibt. Das darf er nicht, so die Mehrheitsmeinung im Ersten Senat: Damit würde er die Rechtslage rückwirkend verändern und damit das Vertrauen der Bürgerinnen und Bürger, dass gilt, was gilt, rechtsstaatswidrig enttäuschen. Unklarheiten zu beseitigen sei allein Sache der Justiz: ... continue reading

Residual Anxieties – A Reply to Ralf Michaels

Ralf Michaels describes me as having „taken offense“ to his claim about  eternal supremacy of Germany in doctrinal scholarship. I wish immediately to clarify that I was not offended at all by his claim; I merely found it to be highly implausible, and rooted in a kind of historical or cultural determinism that is, to say the least, questionable.  Now, however, Michaels in his response considerably revises his assertion, and says he rejects cultural determinism. The key proposition instead is that the average German legal scholar is likely to be a better doctrinalist than the average American scholar, and conversely ... continue reading