In January 2003, two Yemeni citizens were arrested by German police forces at the airport of Frankfurt. The arrest took place pursuant to the request of an American judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action was considered to be a blow against international terrorism and should have demonstrated the functioning of the German-American cooperation in the war against this scourge. However, due to general considerations as well as the concrete circumstances of the case, the extradition of the two persons took more time than would be expected from a smoothly running cooperation. All legal remedies were exhausted in the Yemenis’ efforts to avoid extradition to the United States, and even now, an individual complaint has been brought before the European Court on Human Rights in Strasbourg. The two Yemeni citizens were finally extradited more than ten months after their arrest in November 2003.

Lawyers are the engineers of the social sciences, and their doctors. Neither is good for reputation in interdisciplinary exchange. Social scientists often show contempt for a discipline that seems too close to reality to meet hard methodological standards, and too much concerned by pathologies that are beyond the reach of their methodological tools. As with many prejudices, there is a grain of truth in this one. But not all law is about making decisions and judgements in the face of a reality that is at best partly understood. The legal discipline has its own methodological standards. For the sake of internal clarity, it aims at parsimony. But modelling is not the legal path to methodological rigor. The legal equivalent boils down to one simple question: who asks whom for what? The law splits abstract problems into a series of cases. It reaches parsimony via the selection and sequence of cases. These hypothetical cases are like histological cuts through the social tissue. The legal discipline starts cutting at cases for which existing legal tools seem particularly wellsuited. If these cases are understood, the legal discipline then starts again with the more demanding ones. It is hoped that the sequence of cases leads to an understanding of situations that seemed inaccessible at the outset.

The implementation of Directive 1999/44/EC has turned German sales law on its head, and it has also led to a major reform of the general contract law. Old problems have been solved, and new ones created. Academics and practitioners have commented widely on the reform, and their perceptions range from fundamental opposition to strong enthusiasm. This article attempts to give an impression of the significance of these changes for German sales law, of the most controversially debated issues under the new law and also of the acceptance of the new provisions and of their European origin by academics and by the courts.

Infrastructure in Iraq lies in tatters. Unscrupulous exploitation by Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime, burdensome economic sanctions and massive destruction during the U.S.-led military operation ‘Iraqi Freedom’ have turned Iraq into one of the world's most destitute countries. On the UN Human Poverty Index for 2003, Iraq ranks seventy-first out of ninety-six developing nations. The reconstruction of basic infrastructure is but one first step towards development and economic growth. Rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, however, involves substantial economic interests. After all, the cake to be distributed for rebuilding Iraq is expected to exceed $100 billion. Some companies see on the horizon one of the most rewarding business opportunities “undertaken in over 50 years” At the same time, there is a growing suspicion that political or even personal biases of the United States' administration have a bigger role to play than economic reason when it comes to sharing the cake. In December 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, announced that some of America's trading partners, among them Canada, France, Germany and Russia, would be altogether excluded from competition for major reconstruction projects in Iraq. Public opinion in Europe was quick to brand the United States an international law-breaker. Can one State simply reserve to itself the final word on the Iraqi reconstruction money?

“Those with a taste for fairy tales seem to have thought that in some Aladdin's cave there is hidden the Community law in its splendour and that on a judge's appointment there descends on him knowledge of the magic words Open Sesame. Bad decisions are given when the judge has muddled the password and the wrong door opens. But we do not believe in fairy tales any more.”

There are a myriad of avenues that could be taken by every person and organization each and every day. While perhaps opportunities should be taken advantage of, one must see the need. Some interests are not vital; whereas others are and should not be risked save in cases of grave necessity. And it is morally difficult to require heroism, such that some roads are not taken judiciously and others through lack of awareness or through the lack of requisite heroism.

My colleagues on this panel address the need for more internationalization in U.S. law schools and describe some of the difficulties in internationalizing instruction at a law school in a new European Union member state. As they acknowledge, internationalizing legal education can be expensive, competing with other budgetary demands on U.S. law schools. My remarks today will suggest methods to maximize internationalization less expensively, by using existing programs or by setting up new ones more effectively. Although composed for an audience of U.S. law school faculty members and administrators, these remarks, with some adaptation, may be useful for law faculty outside the United States.

During the past decade many American law schools have identified and responded to the opportunity and necessity of training law students and lawyers for the challenges created by globalization. Opportunities are certainly available to schools with strong business, international trade and human rights programs. Opportunities are, however, also available to schools with interests and strengths in the newer disciplines such as conflict resolution, intellectual property and environment protection. Law schools which have ventured into global oriented training have recognized that the market is not simply a one-way-street for domestic students but also includes training of foreign law students and lawyers. Private foundations in the United States and abroad, foreign governments and our national government have helped finance foreign lawyer visits and training events throughout America. When international lawyers visit the United States, domestic law schools are involved as hosts, training sites, and sources of professional expertise. There has also been a simultaneous movement of domestic lawyers and law students through foreign law school programs and other study abroad opportunities. When all these international experiences are taken together one realizes the need for law schools to become more involved in the development and implementation of training and development of globally oriented legal education.