An Interdisciplinary Approach to Teaching International Law: Using the Tools of the Law School Classroom in Political Science

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (01) ◽  
pp. 189-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana Zartner

ABSTRACTAs the world has grown more interconnected, many political science programs have added courses on international law, international organizations, the laws of war and peace, international human rights, and comparative judicial politics. While in many cases these are relatively new offerings within international studies, all of these subjects have long been part of the law school curriculum. There is, therefore, a long pedagogical history to be examined in terms of the techniques and content used in law schools to teach these courses. This paper examines a number of these techniques and discusses how they may be used in political science courses to enhance student learning opportunities.

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Kamiyama

This article empirically examines, by means of a survey conducted at four universities in São Paulo, two issues related to the teaching of international law in Brazil: (1) what law students think of the discipline as a material branch of the law (its effectiveness, legitimacy etc.) and (2) what they think of the discipline as a component of the law school curriculum. The first part draws upon the semiological concept of “myth” in order to paint a picture of students’ views about the place of international law in the world, as well as upon quantitative data to assess their understandings about compliance with international norms. The second part, which also relies on quantitative and qualitative data, describes students’ ideas about how international law should be taught (if at all). The responses paint a picture of mild student scepticism and dissatisfaction with teaching methods that invite a number of questions for reflection, which are raised in the final part. 


1981 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M. Merelman

I first encountered the work of Harold Lasswell in the late 1950s, when I was a barely awake undergraduate at a university whose reputation for mediocrity was richly deserved. I opened Politics: Who Gets What, When, How to the first paragraph: ‘The study of politics is the study of influence and the influential. The science of politics states conditions; the philosophy of politics justifies preferences. This book, restricted to political analysis, declares no preferences. It states conditions.’ I had never heard of Lasswell, for my political science courses limited themselves to subjects like Congressional seniority and Cabinet responsibility in Britain. One course discussed the law of piracy, a subject I had trouble linking to international politics in the 1950s. Some enterprising instructors occasionally discussed the balance of power, and one even assigned David Truman. But Lasswell was terra incognita to me, as he no doubt was to most undergraduates in those years.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 210
Author(s):  
Cecilia Blengino

<p>This article discusses the resistance experienced by the clinical legal education movement in Italy due to a widespread legal positivist approach which views law as a self-contained technical subject, and excludes interdisciplinarity from the law school curriculum.</p><p>The choice that the newly-born Italian CLE movement now faces is the option to either become a new socio-legal epistemology of law in action and a social change-maker, or to ascribe to a simple restyling of legal education to include certain practical activities aimed at introducing students to the profession. The future of the movement will depend on whether the rapid increase in the number of clinics will be matched by appropriate reflection on "how clinics might be consciously designed around exposing students to gaps between the law in books and the law in action".</p>


Hypatia ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neus Torbisco Casals ◽  
Idil Boran

Originally, the idea of interviewing Iris Marion Young in Barcelona came about after she accepted an invitation to give a public lecture at the Law School of Pompeu Fabra University in May 2002. I had first met Iris back in 1999, at a conference in Bristol, England, and I was impressed deeply by her personality and ideas. We kept in touch since then and exchanged papers and ideas. She was very keen to come to Spain (it seems that her mother had lived some years in Mallorca) and she finally travelled to Barcelona with her husband and daughter in spring 2002.The lecture, which she entitled “Women, War, and Peace,” was meant to be the closing session of a course on Gender and the Law, and was also part of a series of seminars annually organized by the legal philosophy department (the Albert Calsamiglia Seminar). Her work was quite well-known among several Catalan philosophers and political scientists and professor Angel Castiñeira—who, at the time, was the director of Idees (Ideas), a Catalan journal published by the Centre d'Estudis de Temes Contemporanis (Center for the Study of Contemporary Issues)—suggested that she could give a second lecture, which they would publish together with an interview I could prepare. She accepted both proposals, and I started to think of a questionnaire for the interview while I was at Queen's University in Canada earlier that year. Idil Boran, a philosopher and good friend who did her doctorate at Queen's, offered to help me with this endeavour, since she also admired Iris as both a scholar and a person. Together we prepared the questions and sent them to her once she was back in Chicago, as there was not time to conduct the interview in person while she was in Barcelona.In fall 2002, she sent some answers to our questions, but the document was unfortunately incomplete. She was busy at the time, so we didn't want to pressure her to finish the interview. Eventually, the editors of Idees decided to publish the manifest about the war in Iraq subscribed by a large number of American Intellectuals together with fragments of Iris's (antiwar) lectures and an article that she wrote together with Daniel Archibugi, “Envisioning a Global Rule of Law.”1 The interview was thus left unpublished. Both Idil and I thought it would be worthwhile to publish it somewhere else, but, for one reason or another, Iris didn't have the time to complete it and we kept postponing the project. At some point, she said that the questions she left unanswered were too complex or challenging to give a short or quick answer, and that she would need to reflect on them to provide detailed responses.Later, we learned she was ill and we didn't feel it was right to insist on those questions being answered. The issue came up again when she accepted to participate as a keynote speaker at the World Congress of Legal Philosophy held in Granada in June 2005. She then said she would come first to Barcelona (where she and Nancy Fraser had been invited to a workshop by the Catalan Women Institute) and suggested we could sit in a cafe and talk about the issues left out in those unanswered questions. Unfortunately, she had to cancel this trip because of her medical treatment, and I did not have the privilege of sharing time with her again. The following series of questions and responses are the product of this rather extended interview process.Neus Torbisco Casals


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document