Articles for category: Focus

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

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

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.

»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

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

Karlsruhe wagt den Schritt nach Luxemburg

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) hat einen historischen Schritt getan: Die Abtrennung der Fragen zum Ankaufprogramm von Staatsanleihen (OMT) der Europäischen Zentralbank vom Verfahren zum Europäischen Stabilitätsmechanismus ESM und die Vorlage der Fragen zum OMT an den Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union (EuGH): Nie zuvor hat das Gericht eine Frage im Vorlageverfahren nach Art. 267 AEUV an den EuGH gerichtet. Schade allerdings wäre es, wenn der EuGH die Vorlage als unzulässig abweisen müsste, weil die Fragen hypothetischer Natur sind und das Vorlageverfahren nicht als Gutachtenverfahren oder sonst missbraucht werden darf. Während normalerweise die Gerichte dem EuGH die Frage nach der Gültigkeit von Rechtsakten der Unionsorgane vorgelegt wird, fragt das BVerfG hier, ob das Programm der EZB zum Ankauf von Staatsanleihen OMT unvereinbar mit den Unionsverträgen ist und macht sehr deutlich, dass es von der Ungültigkeit ausgeht.

Eine Quelle in der Wüste

Die Medien waren sich schnell einig: eine Sensation, ein Paukenschlag, ein Wendepunkt. Mein Fazit ist nüchterner. Karlsruhe erkennt die eigenen Grenzen und versucht den EuGH als Verbündeten zu gewinnen.Among domestic commentators, the initial response was amazement: the reference by the German Constitutional Court was perceived as a sensation and turning point. My reaction is more moderate. Judges in Karlsruhe recognise their limits and try to push the ECJ in their direction.

A Spring in the Desert

Among domestic commentators, the initial response was amazement: the reference by the German Constitutional Court was perceived as a sensation and turning point. My reaction is more moderate. Judges in Karlsruhe recognise their limits and try to push the ECJ in their direction.

Deutscher Verfassungslegalismus zum Abgewöhnen

Wer sich angesichts der heutigen Entscheidung aus Karlsruhe verstört fragt, was das denn überhaupt alles soll, hat meine ganze Sympathie. Ist das OMT-Programm der Europäischen Zentralbank nun rechtswidrig oder nicht? Wird diese Frage nun in Luxemburg beantwortet oder in Karlsruhe? Und nach welchen Maßstäben? Und mit welchen Folgen? Und wann? Das kann man wirklich alles niemandem mehr erklären. Zunächst wollen wir aber mal eine wirklich epochale Neuigkeit festhalten, die dieser Tag und diese Entscheidung gebracht haben: Jetzt hat auch das Bundesverfassungsgericht, das einflussreichste und sendungsbewussteste unter den Verfassungsgerichten Europas, zum ersten Mal in Luxemburg um eine europarechtliche Vorabentscheidung angefragt. Der ... continue reading

»We don’t export our law to other countries – that would be hubris«

Mr. Weissmann, you were the General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from 2011 until October 2013. Did your legal work at the FBI change after the Snowden leak, and if so, what was the main difference? From a legal perspective, there was a series of issues. First of all, there has been quite a lot of litigation: Internet providers have initiated litigation in the