The Internationalisation of Legal Education
Show Less

The Internationalisation of Legal Education

The Future Practice of Law

Edited by William van Caenegem and Mary Hiscock

The legal academy is responding in many varied ways to the challenge of producing lawyers adequately prepared to operate in a global environment. There is a renewed focus on lawyering skills, on core principles, on cultural context and on comparative research and study. This work advances the discussion of these issues while developing solid solutions and approaches to teaching law students destined for the future practice of law.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 4: Continuing the internationalisation debate: Philosophies of legal education, issues in curriculum design and lessons from skills integration

Bobette Wolski


The legitimate goals of legal education, and the demands made on an already crowded curriculum, are overwhelming. Commentators and policymakers point to the importance of teaching ‘core knowledge’, law in context (with an interdisciplinary mix of subjects such as economics, history, dispute resolution, business and management), generic skills, specific legal skills, ethics and values. More recently, some commentators have argued that the curriculum should be ‘internationalised’ in order to prepare students for increasingly ‘globalised’ legal practice. According to some of these commentators, there is no question but that we should internationalise the curriculum, and the real issue now is how we should go about doing it. In as much as these commentators suggest that there is a pressing need for curricula reform to accommodate external drivers such as globalisation, they may be correct. But if they are suggesting that all law schools and all law teachers are on board with the need for change, then they are being overly optimistic. The debate about internationalisation of the curriculum is far from over. Curriculum reform (or the more trendy term – ‘curriculum renewal’) is a painful process and one that faces many challenges including ‘turf wars’, ‘the demon of coverage’, the curriculum design equivalent of the Not in My Back Yard syndrome (NIMBY), and a university environment in which academic freedom is highly valued.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.