Global Law Schools on U.S. Models: Emerging Models of Consensus-Based Internationalization or Markets-Based Americanization Models of Global Legal Education, 2 Revista de Educación y Derecho/Education and Law Review (España) 4:1-53 (April-Sept. 2011) (with Bret Stancil).
DOWNLOAD ARTICLE HERE:2198-2480-1-PB
Abstract: En este artículo se examina dos enfoques sustancialmente incompatibles de la interna- cionalización que están surgiendo en los Estados Unidos. La primera se centra en la globalización del currículo escolar a través de la ley de internacionalización. Este enfo- que es congruente con las nuevas tendencias en la internacionalización de la educación legal en Europa. La internacionalización de los enfoques en segundo lugar como la competencia por el mercado por la influencia entre dominante ordenamientos jurídicos nacionales, es decir, la globalización nacionalista. La internacionalización es enten- dida como la extensión de la influencia de la legislación nacional fuera del territorio nacional y está muy bien ilustrado por los recientes esfuerzos para globalizar el currícu- lum escolar la ley por la internacionalización del derecho convencional EE.UU. currículo escolar. La tesis de principio es el siguiente: La comunidad global de educación legal, liderado por los europeos, ha sido la construcción de una visión de la globalización de la educación jurídica, que tiene como base la idea de la armonización y convergencia de los diferentes sistemas y el desarrollo de un nuevo modelo institucional basado en la armonización de las tendencias mundiales de la ley. Los Estados Unidos parecen estar tomando dos enfoques para este desarrollo. Por un lado, algunas instituciones están participando en la internacionalización de la educación. Sin embargo, las institu- ciones estadounidenses también están trabajando en contra de esta tendencia general al plantear una forma de globalización que tiene como fundamento la idea de que la enseñanza del derecho nacional puede ser globalizada y el rechazo de la necesidad de crear y enseñar derecho más allá del derecho nacional. En lugar de la armonización y la globalización del derecho, los estadounidenses de un modelo basado en la competencia extraterritorial para la socialización de las leyes del ordenamiento jurídico interno de los estados dominantes.
This article examines two substantially irreconcilable approaches to internationalization that are emerging in the United States. The first focuses on globalizing the law school curriculum through internationalization.This approach is congruent with emerging trends in legal education internationalization in Europe. The second approaches internationalization as a market driven competition for influence among dominant domestic legal orders, that is, as nationalist globalization. Internationalization is understood as the extension of the influence of national law outside the na- tional territory and is nicely illustrated by recent efforts to globalize the law school curriculum by internationalizing the conventional U.S. law school curriculum. The prin- ciple thesis is this: The global legal education community, led by the Europeans, has been constructing a vision of globalization of legal education that has as its basis the idea of harmonization and convergence of different systems and the development of a new institutional model grounded in harmonized global trends in law. The United States appears to be taking two approaches to this development. After an Introduc- tion, Part II examines the internationalization efforts of U.S. law schools following one of five models: (1) integration; (2) segregation; (3) aggregation; (4) immersion; and (5) multi-disciplinary department models. This project seeks a newer framework for the construction of shared legal structures grounded in joint effort that is not dominated by the approaches off any one state. Part III then examines the ways in which American institutions are also working against this general trend by positing a form of nationalist globalization that has as its foundation the idea that national legal education can go global without globalizing the law taught. Nationalist globalization takes three forms: a focus on the training of lawyers for domestic service whose pedagogical methodologies can be exported, the extraterritorial extension of the U.S. law school system, and the management of post graduate degrees in law for foreign law graduates. In place of harmonization and globalization of law, the American nationalist globalization model grounded in extraterritorial competition for socialization in the laws of the domestic legal order of dominant states. The article ends with an analysis of the consequences of these competing forms of global engagement in legal education. While much of the attention on changes to the American law school environment has focused on internationalization within consensus-based and supplementary programs founded on the internationalization ideal, American law schools have also been developing market-based strategies that are, at their core, fundamentally inconsistent with the internationalization framework.
Private Actors and Public Governance Beyond the State: The Multinational Corporation, the Financial Stability Board and the Global Governance Order, 18(2) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 751 (2011).
DOWNLOAD ARTICLE HERE: Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies Vol 18 Summer 2011
Abstract: Transnational corporations are at the center of extraordinary and complex governance systems that are developing outside the state and international public organizations, and beyond the conventionally legitimating framework of the forms of domestic or international hard law. Though these systems are sometimes recognized as autonomous and authoritative among its members, they are neither isolated from each other nor from the states with which they come into contact. Together these systems may begin to suggest a new template for networked governance beyond the state, but one in which public and private actors are integrated stakeholders. This provides the source of the questions explored in this article: Is it possible to detect this new template for transnational governance of economic activity (in general) and corporations (in particular) developing through principles of transnational private governance?; Is Public governance in the twenty-first century taking on the characteristics of transnational corporate governance? The questions suggest three objectives. The first is to examine the organization of communities of states through the normative lens of private transnational governance. A secondary objective is to suggest the importance of communication – structural coupling – between developing private governance systems and emerging transnational public governance systems. That communication suggests the development of the institutional intermeshing of both autonomous systems of governing communities of private actors and communities of states. The third objective is to consider whether emerging governance frameworks, public and private, might be arranged together in a way that credibly suggests a system of coordinated meta-governance. After an introduction, Section I of this article examines the governance constitutions of multinational economic actors. Section II then turns to a consideration of corporate constitutionalism within a meta-governance framework. The focus is the governance framework of the G-20’s Financial Stability Board (FSB). The G20-FSB framework points to the future of governance systems in which the state participates in a collaborative governance structure, but in which states share rule making power with public and private non-state actors. The FSB template points to the organization of governance as a collegial enterprise in which states and traditional law-based systems interact with non-state actors and their norm-based systems to develop integrated governance with global reach. Thus reconstituted, a new set of arrangements might well arise, one in which amalgamations of the most powerful states and private regulatory bodies assert authority once reserved to states alone.
The United Nations’ “Protect, Respect, and Remedy” Human Rights Project: On Operationalizing a Global Framework for the Regulation of Transnational Corporations, 9 Santa Clara J. Int’l Law 37 (2011).
DOWNLOAD ARTICLE HERE: Backer, 9 SCJIL 37
Abstract: The advent of contemporary economic globalization has substantially altered the regulatory environment in which economic enterprises operate. Once assumed to be creatures of the states that recognized and regulated their existence, economic enterprises today are increas- ingly capable of arranging their activities beyond the regulatory scope of any state or groups of states. That gap between operational and regulatory capacity has produced a sustained reaction at the national and international levels. States have sought to extend their power over corporations beyond their borders. International organizations have sought to develop supranational legal governance frameworks. This paper examines one of the more important efforts to elaborate a transnational regulatory framework for transnational corporations and other business enterprises—the United Nations’ “protect, respect, and remedy” frame- work. The three parts of the framework—the state duty to protect, the corporate responsibil- ity to respect and the access to remedies—posit a system in which national legal orders in- corporate and apply national and international human rights norms as enterprises implement global systems of institutionalized social norms, and both provide mechanisms for remedy of breaches of these overlapping but not identical legal and governance systems with- in their respective jurisdictions. The conceptual grounding of the framework is first explored on its own terms. The framework’s viability as a transnational autonomous regulatory soft- law system is then explored. The resulting issues of implementation under the framework are then examined, as national systems transpose international legal obligations in the govern- ance of enterprises that are themselves independently subject to global systems of social norms, both of which are bound up in a remedial matrix. The paper ends by examining the implications for the regulation of corporations raised by the proposed construction of this polycentric multilevel law-governance system.