Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:01:05.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

We don't need another IRAC: identifying global legal skills

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2014

Helena Whalen-Bridge
Helena Whalen-Bridge*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, National University of Singapore Faculty of Law. Email: [email protected]
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For some time now, there has been a perceived need to prepare law students to handle legal issues beyond national borders. Much has been written on how globalisation should shape legal education, but no clear direction has emerged. There is also a contrary impulse to retain a focus on domestic law in order to prepare students for practice in their home jurisdiction. One way of addressing these apparently contrary impulses is to take a skills approach that articulates the analytical processes distinctively active in a more global context. Some of these skills could then be integrated into a variety of courses. However, skills in the global context should not merely replicate domestic conceptions of skills. This paper proposes that students develop abilities in comparative thinking and heuristic question framing, and reviews the advantages and disadvantages of a course in Comparative Advocacy designed to accomplish these goals.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 315 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, J. H. (1997) ‘Striving to Teach “Justice, Fairness, and Morality”’, Clinical Law Review 4: 1–64.Google Scholar
A-Khavari, A. (2006) ‘The Opportunities and Possibilities for Internationalising the Curriculum of Law Schools in Australia’, Legal Education Review 16: 75–98.Google Scholar
Akkermans, B. and Heringa, A. W. (eds) (2011) Educating European Lawyers. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Arthurs, H. W. (2009) ‘Law and Learning in an Era of Globalization’, German Law Journal 10: 629–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backer, L. C. (2008) ‘Internationalizing the American Law School Curriculum (In Light of the Carnegie Foundation's Report)’, in Klabbers, J. and Sellers, M. (eds), The Internationalization of Law and Legal Education. Dordrecht and London: Springer, 49–112.Google Scholar
Barkley, Elizabeth, Cross, K. Patricia and Major, Claire Howell (2005) ‘The Case for Collaborative Learning’, in Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Barlow, C. and Hadden, J. M. (03 June 2013) ‘Streaming the Supreme Court’, Law Society Gazette, online: <http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/practice-points/streaming-supreme-court>..>Google Scholar
Bell, G. F. (1999) ‘The Singapore Legal System in Context – Whither the Concept of the National Legal System?’ in Tan, K. Y. L. (ed.), The Singapore Legal System, 2nd edn.Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1–25.Google Scholar
Bin Abbas, Ahmad Nizam (2012) ‘The Islamic Legal System in Singapore’, Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 21: 163.Google Scholar
Bortoluzzi, C. (2010) ‘A New European Model of Legal Education as One of the Institutional Elements of the New European Common Law’, Global Jurist Advances 10(3): 1–21.Google Scholar
Brest, P. and Krieger, L. H. (2010) Problem Solving, Decision Making, and Professional Judgment. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bryant, S. (1993) ‘Collaboration in Law Practice: A Satisfying and Productive Process for a Diverse Profession’, Vermont Law Review 17: 459–531.Google Scholar
Bryant, S. (2001) ‘The Five Habits: Building Cross-Cultural Competence in Lawyers’, Clinical Law Review 8: 33–107.Google Scholar
Bryant, S. and Milstein, E. S. (2007) ‘Rounds: A “Signature Pedagogy” for Clinical Legal Education?’, Clinical Law Review 14: 195–251.Google Scholar
Cahn, J. D. (2001) ‘The Global Legal Professional and the Challenges to Legal Education’, Penn State International Law Review 20: 55–65.Google Scholar
Coleman, C. K. (2012) ‘Teaching the Torture Memos: “Making Decisions under Conditions of Uncertainty”’, Journal of Legal Education 62: 81–114.Google Scholar
Cownie, F. (2010) ‘Introduction: Contextualising Stakeholders in the Law School’ in Cownie, F. (ed.), Stakeholders in the Law School. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 1–14.Google Scholar
Damaska, M. (1968) ‘A Continental Lawyer in an American Law School: Trials and Tribunals of Adjustment’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 116: 1363–1378.Google Scholar
DeJarnatt, S. L. and Rahdert, M. C. (2011) ‘Preparing for Globalized Law Practice: The Need to Include International and Comparative Law in the Legal Writing Curriculum’, Legal Writing: Journal of the Legal Writing Institute 17: 3–63.Google Scholar
Emerging Worldwide Strategies in Internationalizing Legal Education (1999) Penn State International Law Review 18: 411–599.Google Scholar
Fine, T. M. (2000) ‘The Globalisation of Legal Education in the United States’, European Journal of Law Reform 2: 567–610.Google Scholar
Fish, S. (1989) ‘Being Interdisciplinary Is So Very Hard to Do’, Profession 89: 15–22.Google Scholar
Flower, L. (1981) Problem-Solving Strategies for Writing. New York: Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Fordham, M. (2006) ‘Comparative Legal Traditions–Introducing the Common Law to Civil Lawyers in Asia’, Asian Journal of Comparative Law 1(1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Frankenberg, G. (1985) ‘Critical Comparisons: Re-thinking Comparative Law’, Harvard International Law Journal 26: 411–455.Google Scholar
French, J. and Rhoder, C. (1992) Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. New York and London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Gionfriddo, J. K. (2007) ‘Thinking Like a Lawyer: The Heuristics of Case Synthesis’, Texas Tech Law Review 40: 1–36.Google Scholar
Glen, H. P. (2001) ‘Comparative Law and Legal Practice: On Removing the Borders’, Tulane Law Review 75: 977–1002.Google Scholar
Gott, S. P. (1988) ‘Apprenticeship Instruction for Real-World Tasks: The Coordination of Procedures, Mental Models, and Strategies’, Review of Research in Education 15: 97–169.Google Scholar
Grose, C. (2013) ‘Beyond Skills Training, Revisited: The Clinical Education Spiral’, Clinical Law Review 19: 489–515.Google Scholar
Hage, J. (2011) ‘Comparative Law and Legal Science’ in Akkermans, B. and Heringa, A. W. (eds), Educating European Lawyers. Cambridge: Intersentia, 65–77.Google Scholar
Heringa, A. W. (2010) ‘European Legal Education: The Maastricht Experience’, Penn State International Law Review 29: 81–94.Google Scholar
Holmquist, K. (2012) ‘Challenging Carnegie’, Journal of Legal Education 61: 353–378.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. (1980) The Shock of the New: Art and the Century of Change. London: BBC.Google Scholar
Husa, J. (2009) ‘Turning the Curriculum Upside Down: Comparative Law as an Educational Tool for Constructing the Pluralistic Legal Mind’, German Law Journal 10: 913–926.Google Scholar
IALS (International Association of Law Schools) (2011) Conference on Teaching, Legal Education and Strategic Planning, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, 13–15 April.Google Scholar
Irish, C. R. (2006) ‘Reflections of an Observer: The International Conference on Legal Educational Reform’, Wisconsin International Law Journal 2: 5–22.Google Scholar
Jassem, Z. A. (1993) On Malaysian English: Its Implications for the Teaching of English as a Second or Foreign Language (TESL/TEFL). Kuala Lumpur: Pustaka Antara.Google Scholar
Jones, P. A. (1996) ‘We're All Reflective Practitioners Now: Reflections on Professional Education’, in Webb, J. and Maughan, C, C.. (eds), Teaching Lawyers' Skills. London, Dublin and Edinburgh: Butterworths, 291–323.Google Scholar
Kelman, M. (2011) The Heuristics Debate. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klabbers, J. (2006) ‘Legal Education in the Balance: Accommodating Flexibility’, Journal of Legal Education 56: 196–200.Google Scholar
Kochan, D. (2011) ‘Thinking Like Thinkers: Is the Art and Discipline of an ‘Attitude of Suspended Conclusion’ Lost on Lawyers?’, Seattle University Law Review 35: 1–73.Google Scholar
Legal Writing Institute (1995) The Second Draft: Bulletin of the Legal Writing Institute 10, online: <http://www.lwionline.org/publications/seconddraft/nov95.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Legrand, P. (2008) ‘Preface: Comparing in Circles’, in Nicholson, P. and Biddulph, S. (eds), Examining Practice, Interrogating Theory: Comparative Legal Studies in Asia. Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1–8.Google Scholar
Leong, A. P. B. (1998) Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston's Law of Contract, 2nd edn (Singapore and Malaysian edn.). Singapore: Butterworths Asia.Google Scholar
Lindsey, T. and Steiner, K. (2011a) Islam, Law and the State in Southeast Asia, Volume 2, Singapore. London: I. B. Tauris.Google Scholar
Lindsey, T. and Steiner, K. (2011b) Islam, Law and the State in Southeast Asia, Volume 3, Malaysia and Brunei. London: I. B. Tauris.Google Scholar
Loh, W. (1994) ‘Introduction: The MacCrate Report – Heuristic or Prescriptive?’, Washington Law Review 69: 505–515.Google Scholar
Loke, P. (2006) ‘Forging a New Equilibrium in Singapore Legal Education’, Wisconsin International Law Journal 24: 261–293.Google Scholar
Maughan, C. and Webb, J. (1996) ‘Taking Reflection Seriously: How Was It For Us?’ in Webb, J. and Maughan, C. (eds), Teaching Lawyers' Skills. London, Dublin and Edinburgh: Butterworths, 261–290.Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C. (2011) ‘Why and How to Study “Transnational’ Law”’, UC Irvine Law Review 1: 97–128.Google Scholar
Mirow, M. C. (2012) Globalización y la Educación Legal en los EE.UU (Globalization and Legal Education in the United States) Memorias del Congreso Internacional de Globalización, Derecho Supranacional e Integración Americana, Escuela Libre de Derecho, November 2012 in Globalización, Derecho Supranacional e Integración Americana (México: Porrúa/Escuela Libre de Derecho, 2013), online: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2188981>) (English translation provided to author by Irene Rosazza, Research Assistant).)+(English+translation+provided+to+author+by+Irene+Rosazza,+Research+Assistant).>Google Scholar
Morawa, A. H. E. and Zhang, X. (2008) ‘Transnationalization of Legal Education: A Swiss (and Comparative) Perspective’, Penn State International Law Review 26: 811–830.Google Scholar
Mullins, M. E. (2003) ‘Tools, Not Rules: The Heuristic Nature of Statutory Interpretation’, Journal of Legislation 30: 1–76.Google Scholar
Neumann, R. K. Jr. (2000) ‘Donald Schön, the Reflective Practitioner, and the Comparative Failures of Legal Education’, Clinical Law Review 6: 401–426.Google Scholar
Neumann, R. K. Jr. and Tiscione, K. W. (2013) Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing, 7th edn.New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (1988) ‘On Improving Thinking Through Instruction’, Review of Research in Education 15: 3–57.Google Scholar
Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2006) Critical Thinking. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Pea, R. D. and Kurland, D. M. (1987) ‘Cognitive Technologies for Writing’, Review of Research in Education 14: 277–326.Google Scholar
Plous, Scott (1993) The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Polya, G. (1957) How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method, 2nd edn.Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Putnam, R., Lampert, M. and Peterson, P. L. (1990) ‘Alternative Perspectives on Knowing Mathematics in Elementary Schools’, Review of Research in Education 16: 57–150.Google Scholar
Quigley, Fran (1995) ‘Seizing the Disorientating Moment’, Clinical Law Review 2: 37.Google Scholar
Risse, J. (2004) ‘While Knowledge Abounds, Skills Are What Counts: An Essay About the Attorney of Tomorrow’, German Law Journal 5: 143–149.Google Scholar
Rhee, Robert (2012) ‘The Socratic Method and the Mathematical Heuristic of George Polya’, St. John's Law Review 81: 881–898.Google Scholar
Saks, Michael J. and Kidd, Robert F. (1980–1981) ‘Human Information Processing and Adjudication: Trial by Heuristics’, Law and Society Review 15: 123.Google Scholar
Schmieg, J. M. (2003) ‘Phrasing the Question: The Use of the Buffalo Creek Disaster in Teaching Civil Procedure’, Saint Louis University Law Journal 47: 149–156.Google Scholar
Shultz, M. M. and Zedek, S. (2011) ‘Predicting Lawyer Effectiveness: Broadening the Basis for Law School Admission Decisions’, Law & Social Enquiry 36: 620–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smits, J. M. (2011) ‘European Legal Education, or: How to Prepare Students for Global Citizenship?’, The Law Teacher 45: 163–180.Google Scholar
Sourgens, F. G. (2007) ‘Comparative Law as Rhetoric: An Analysis of the Use of Comparative Law in International Arbitration’, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 8: 1–23.Google Scholar
Stern, Gerald M. (1977/2008) The Buffalo Creek Disaster. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Stroud, C. and Wee, L. (2012) Style, Identity, and Literacy: English in Singapore. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sullivan, W. M., Colby, A., Wegner, J. W., Bond, L. and Shulman, L. S. (2007) Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2004) ‘Moral Heuristics and Moral Framing’, Minnesota Law Review 88: 1556–1597.Google Scholar
Symposium on Globalisation (1996) Journal of Legal Education 46: 311–341.Google Scholar
Symposium: Globalization of The Legal Profession (2007) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 14: 1–145.Google Scholar
Tremblay, P. R. (2002) ‘Interviewing and Counseling Across Cultures: Heuristics and Biases’, Clinical Law Review 9: 373–416.Google Scholar
Twining, W. (2010) ‘A Cosmopolitan Discipline? Some Implications of “Globalisation” for Legal Education’, International Journal of the Legal Profession 8: 23–36.Google Scholar
Waincymer, J. (2010) ‘Internationalization of Legal Education: Putting the “why” before the “how”’, in Steele, S. and Taylor, K. (eds), Legal Education in Asia: Globalization, Change and Contexts. London and New York: Routledge, 68–88.Google Scholar
Younger, J. T. (1969) ‘A Heuristic Approach to Teaching the Seminar in Land Use Planning’, Journal of Legal Education 21: 461–464.Google Scholar