Font Size » Large | Small

“General Principles of Academic Specialization By Means of Certificate or Concentration Programs: Creating a Certificate Program in International, Comparative and Foreign Law at Penn State,” 20 Penn. State International Law Review 20(1):67-152 (2001).

Abstract: Specialization in legal education, like late in private practice, has become more pronounced. Law schools have responded to the specialization trend by instituting programs leading to the award of post-J.D. degrees, primarily the LL.M., and by providing for recognition of specialization as part of the J.D. course of study through certificate or concentration programs. This article uses a case study – the presentation of a certificate program in international, comparative and foreign law at Pennsylvania State University’s Dickinson School of Law in 2001 – as a basis for analyzing these emerging programs of concentration and to demonstrate why these programs should be promoted where appropriate. The article explores the basis for specialization within law school curricula. It then explores the basic characteristics of the fields of international, comparative and foreign law which form the basis of the certificate program of the case study. Within that context, the author elaborates eleven general principles for the creation and implementation of certificate programs. These principles are then applied to assess the value of the proposed certificate program at Penn State as an example of the way the principles can be used to assess any certificate or other program of concentration.

DOWNLOAD ARTICLE HERE: 20PSUIntntlLRev67(2001)GenPrinciples



“The Extra-National State: American Confederate Federalism and the European Union,”  Columbia Journal of European Law 7(2):173-240 (2001).

Abstract: This article examines the ways in which John C. Calhoun’s theories of federalism, suppressed in the United States after the American Civil War, now shape the European debate over the nature of the political organization of the European Union. Much of the work on the ‘lessons’ of American federalism for the European Union and other supra-national systems have been based predominantly on an understanding of post Civil War American federalism. It remains, on that account, extremely superficial. The more important lessons of American federalism are to found in Calhoun’s marginalized understanding of federalism. This alternative vision of the possibilities of federal organization may yet provide emerging supra-national unions, the most important of which is the European Union, with a powerful conceptual foundation for the construction of non-national federal systems of government. For this effort, the theories of multi-state association rejected in nineteenth century America may prove extremely forward-looking in the twenty-first century world of small ethnically homogenous communities and large pluralistic super-unions. The article first considers the federalist theories of John C. Calhoun in the context of the early American conversation about federalism. It then considers the emerging European reprise of this American conversation. The European Union has restarted a conversation about the nature and elasticity of federalism which was cut off in the United States in 1865. I begin with a review of the European version of federalism orthodoxy emerging from out of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the elaboration of this orthodoxy in the projects of the Institutions of the European Community, drawing parallels with the development of the American orthodox position. I then examine the way this new orthodoxy is being challenged within the European Union in a way that mirrors the challenge to American orthodoxy before the Civil War. I then suggest parallels between the emerging European and the earlier American conversation about nation-building through the application of federalism principles. European ‘Hamiltonian’ nation-builders too easily dismiss the importance, and perhaps the permanence, of the nation-states of Europe. The states rights camp seek to hide, by resort to legal formalism and technicalities, from the reality that Europe is drifting towards union. The intellectual community engages in this absurd mimicry even as it falsely assumes the unchanging nature of American federalism or dismisses as substantially irrelevant the historical genesis of American federalism and the consequences of the early American struggles. The blindness of both camps, like those of American antebellum thinkers, seriously impedes the task of European union making, and ignores the political and economic realities emerging within Europe, with potentially disastrous results. I end with suggestions for a Calhounian solution to the problem of European political organization.

DOWNLOAD ARTICLE HERE: 7(2)ColumbJEurL173(2001)ExtraNatState