Culture, Institutions, and Comparison of Legal Education and Scholarship—A Response to Rob Howse

In a post on verfassungsblog.de I compare two reports on legal education and scholarship: one concerning Germany from the German Council on Science and Humanities (Wissenschaftsrat), the other concering the United States from a task force of the American Bar Association. I find the Wissenschaftsrat’s decision to maintain an emphasis on doctrinal reasoning, while promoting interdisciplinarity and theory, to be prudent—especially for the German situation. By contrast, I find that the ABA report, in its emphasis on teaching skills and tools and implicit rejection of interdisciplinarity, to threaten what has always been a strength of law schools in the United ... continue reading

20. Februar 2014

Die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft – Eine Gefahr für den fair trial-Grundsatz?

Die EU möchte im Jahr 2015 eine Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft einrichten. Diese soll es erleichtern, Straftaten zum Nachteil der finanziellen Interessen der Union zu verfolgen. Aber sie birgt auch Gefahren: Nur wenn parallel auch die Rechte der Beschuldigten gestärkt werden, ist dieses Ziel mit dem fair trial-Grundsatz vereinbar.

20. Februar 2014

, , ,

A Comment on the Use of Foreign Professors in the German Council of Science and Humanities Report

The main issue I wish to focus on in this Comment relates to the German Council of Science and Humanities‹ recommendation that German law schools should aim to encourage more involvement of foreign professors in teaching at German law schools, as part of a sustained attempt to stimulate more engagement with comparative, international and transnational legal developments. Since I have seen attempts at first hand to do something similar in Michigan and Oxford (and more distantly at New York University), I thought it might be helpful to intervene on this aspect of the Report’s recommendations. As background to the points I make ... continue reading

20. Februar 2014

Karlsruhe setzt kreativem Umgang mit Ordnungsgeldern Grenzen

Wenn ein Unternehmen gar keinen Aufsichtsrat hat, darf es nicht dafür bestraft werden, wenn es keinen Bericht desselben veröffentlicht. Das klingt erst mal so logisch, dass es keiner Erwähnung wert wäre. Aber es ist trotzdem passiert, und das hat jetzt das Bundesverfassungsgericht auf den Plan gerufen, das in einer heute veröffentlichten Kammerentscheidung zu den verfassungsrechtlichen Grenzen des Ordnungswidrigkeitenrechts ein paar durchaus notierenswerte Dinge sagt. Es geht in dem Fall um eine GmbH, die eigentlich einen Aufsichtsrat hätte haben müssen, aber keinen hatte – und deshalb ihren Jahresabschlüssen auch keinen Bericht des Aufsichtsrats beifügte, was sie nach § 325 I 3 ... continue reading

19. Februar 2014

Will Germany always really best the US (and the world) in doctrinal legal scholarship?

Germany's Science Council (Wissenschaftsrat) has issued a report on the state of legal scholarship in the country. At first glance it is fairly interesting as an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the discipline. The report has attracted, however, a rather unusual response at Verfassungsblog from a professor at Duke, Ralf Michaels, who seems to hold to theories of cultural determinism in legal education. According to Michaels, "German doctrinal scholarship will always be superior to that of other countries,.." Always? I am not sure what to make of this.Germany's Science Council (Wissenschaftsrat) has issued a report on the state of legal scholarship in the country. At first glance it is fairly interesting as an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the discipline. The report has attracted, however, a rather unusual response at Verfassungsblog from a professor at Duke, Ralf Michaels, who seems to hold to theories of cultural determinism in legal education. According to Michaels, "German doctrinal scholarship will always be superior to that of other countries,.." Always? I am not sure what to make of this.

19. Februar 2014

»Law as the Study of Norms« – Foundational Subjects and Interdisciplinarity in Germany and the United States

The German Council of Science and Humanities‹ report on »Prospects of Legal Scholarship in Germany. Current Situation, Analyses, Recommendations« has sparked a lively debate amongst legal scholars in Germany on how to adapt legal education and legal scholarship to the challenges of increasing internationalization of the law. The first contribution to our symposium on Prospects of Legal Scholarship takes a look at the state of interdisciplinary studies at German and US-American law faculties and compares the Wissenschaft’s report to the recently issued report by the American Bar Association.   In my view, the Wissenschaftsrat’s report hits almost all the right notes. One ... continue reading

19. Februar 2014

Schottland auf dem Weg in die EU – oder aus ihr heraus?

Ein unabhängiges Schottland als 29. EU Mitgliedsstaat im Jahr 2016. Schnell, unkompliziert, ohne Brüche. Das ist der Plan von Alex Salmond, dem Ministerpräsidenten Schottlands. Wie wahrscheinlich ist dieser Zeitplan? Eine Frage, die für die Abstimmung über die Unabhängigkeit Schottlands am 18. September 2014 entscheidend ist und sich schwer juristisch lösen lässt. Antworten darauf liegen nicht in Edinburgh sondern in London, Brüssel und Madrid.

18. Februar 2014

Prospects of Legal Scholarship: a symposium

&

this is Structural changes in the law present challenges to current legal research and the study of law in Germany – amongst them Europeanization, internationalization and transnationalization of the legal system. Thus, Germany ought to rethink the way in which it teaches law, how and under which conditions legal scholarship takes place in Germany, and how the system ought to be adapted to tackle the challenges ahead: this is, in a nutshell, the essence of the German Council of Science and Humanities‹ report on Prospects of Legal Scholarship in Germany. Current Situation, Analyses, Recommendations. But if internationalization of the law presents a challenge, ... continue reading

18. Februar 2014

Warum EU und Mitgliedsstaaten verpflichtet sind, eine schottische EU-Mitgliedschaft zu fördern

Ein mögliches eigenständiges Schottland stellt die EU vor rechtliche Herausforderungen. Denn die europäischen Verträge enthalten keine speziellen Regelungen für den Fall, dass ein Teil eines EU-Mitgliedsstaates unabhängig wird. Allerdings folgt aus dem Demokratieprinzip in Verbindung mit der Unionsbürgerschaft eine Rechtspflicht der EU, die schottische EU-Mitgliedschaft zu fördern. Auch die Mitgliedsstaaten unterliegen aufgrund der Unionstreue dieser Pflicht. Ein unabhängiges Schottland muss daher auch Mitglied der EU werden können.The possibility of an independent Scotland poses legal challenges for the EU. The European Treaties do not contain specific rules for the case of a part of a EU Member State becoming independent. But from the principle of democracy and EU citizenship follows a legal obligation for the EU to support a EU membership for Scotland. Further, due to their duty of cooperation (Unionstreue), the Member States are under this legal obligation as well. An independent Scotland therefore has to be able to become a EU Member State.

18. Februar 2014

Armenian Genocide v. Holocaust in Strasbourg: Trivialisation in Comparison

At the end of 2013, the European Court of Human Rights delivered an impressively extensive judgement in the case Perinçek v. Switzerland. The condemnation of a Turkish politician for the denial of Armenian genocide by Swiss courts violated freedom of expression. Along with many human rights scholars, I would hardly shake hands with a Holocaust or an Armenian genocide denier. Yet I will be equally sceptical of courtrooms being appropriate sites to qualify historical truth. For a summary of that position, see my recent paper (“Historical Revisionism: Law, Politics, and Surrogate Mourning”). At first glance, the outcome of Perinçek is a victory for civil rights. Limiting historical discussion by criminal prosecution is clearly an anachronism in the 21st century. However, on a deeper reading, this decision reveals yet another judicial pitfall which substantially undermines its outcome for freedom of speech in Europe. This pitfall stems from a sort of legal hypocrisy embedded in the Court’s distinction between the Holocaust and other mass atrocities of the 20th century.At the end of 2013, the European Court of Human Rights delivered an impressively extensive judgement in the case Perinçek v. Switzerland. The condemnation of a Turkish politician for the denial of Armenian genocide by Swiss courts violated freedom of expression. Along with many human rights scholars, I would hardly shake hands with a Holocaust or an Armenian genocide denier. Yet I will be equally sceptical of courtrooms being appropriate sites to qualify historical truth. For a summary of that position, see my recent paper (“Historical Revisionism: Law, Politics, and Surrogate Mourning”). At first glance, the outcome of Perinçek is a victory for civil rights. Limiting historical discussion by criminal prosecution is clearly an anachronism in the 21st century. However, on a deeper reading, this decision reveals yet another judicial pitfall which substantially undermines its outcome for freedom of speech in Europe. This pitfall stems from a sort of legal hypocrisy embedded in the Court’s distinction between the Holocaust and other mass atrocities of the 20th century.

13. Februar 2014