Opinio Juris

Washington & Lee Law School (where I teach) recently has elected to make the third-year of its JD entirely experiential. This means a balance of clinic, externships, service, and, most importantly, practicum courses taught by permanent faculty. What is the relationship between our reforms and international law? In a recent post, Roger Alford opines they will lead to the "marginalization" of international law, which he characterizes as an "elective".

I do wish Roger had contacted Rick Kirgis or me before posting such inaccuracies. The reality couldn't be more different. The conversation we at Washington & Lee have undertaken about the pedagogical product we deliver has led us to rethink our first year, along with the "elective" nature of international and comparative law more generally. Our Curriculum Committee has just unanimously voted to implement a mandatory three-credit Transnational Law course in the first-year of our JD. This Transnational Law course pursues an integrated approach to international and comparative law. Since all students would take this course, that means they can devote their second and third years to the large number of specialized courses, theoretical research seminars, and practicum courses we offer. Keep your fingers crossed that the full faculty gets on board! I'm optimistic. If so, we would be ahead of the curve in the mainstreaming of our field.

As a result of this conversation, we have just hired four new internationalist scholars to our permanent faculty. We are very excited to have them joining us in July. We also have hired a clinician, a VAP, and a professor-of-practice with international law teaching commitments. Moreover, through our Transnational Law Institute, which was inaugurated in 2006, we offer internships abroad, a speakers' series (thus far including two ASIL Presidents), visiting scholar opportunities, and intensive courses.

Whatever one thinks of the merits of injecting more experiential learning into the JD curriculum, to conclude that such a move would threaten international law reflects an odd nervousness about the place of our field in the curriculum. Moreover, to assert - as Roger does - that international and comparative law is ill-suited for experiential learning demonstrates a lack of imagination. Our students are assisting defense lawyers in the ECCC, helping implement a UN mandate for rule of law through instruction and in-country work in Liberia, going to produce memos and assistance for public defenders in Iraq, and - with our new hires - actively jumping into litigation experiences regarding climate change and women's rights in Africa. I am not saying there is no debate on the merits of experiential learning - far from it - and it is a debate that itself only can be informed by experience. What I am saying is that there are more ways to teach international, foreign, and comparative law than simply through classroom lectures, Socratic method, and research seminars.