Sessions Information

  • January 8, 2011
    10:30 am - 12:15 pm
    Session Type: AALS Programs
    Session Capacity: N/A
    Hotel: Parc 55 Wyndham San Francisco Union Square
    Room: Mason
    Floor: Third Floor Level

    (Papers to be published in Penn State International Law Review)


    The program is divided into two interrelated and complimentary components.  The first part will question the universality of AALS’ core values in a transnational setting.  Some of these values may be considered American centric; e.g.., “a faculty composed primarily of full-time teachers/scholars who constitute a self-governing intellectual community…”.  Why must a core value for legal education be a faculty comprised of “full time teachers/scholars”?  The law faculty of many non-US schools are composed mainly of legal practitioners rather than full time teachers.  The second factor is “self-governing”.  Once again, differences exist.  While one can certainly understand the rationale for “self-governing”, that may not be practical or desirable in another setting.   Structures of law schools differ, and a comparative exploration in an informal discursive setting would both engage as well as enlighten the panelists and the audience.


    With respect to core values to which most legal educators would agree, e.g. “scholarship”, “rigorous academic program”, etc., is there a difference in the priority of values when they conflict with each other?  If so, how and why?  The AALS core value of diversity and non-discrimination will be explored in the context of homogenous populations or societies with more rigid political or religious views.


    Part I‘s discourse as to core values then segues into Part II’s more substantive and focused discussion comparing approaches to a fundamental and foundational issue in any legal system, i.e. judicial review.  The concept of judicial review of legislative and executive branch actions is one of the core beliefs of the American political system (equal and independent branches of government).  The concept of an independent judiciary being the final arbiter of the actions of the two other branches has become conflated with the very notion of the rule of law.  This part of the program will, once again, offer varying views on the judicial review process across various legal and national systems.

Session Speakers
University of Milan

Australian National University College of Law

Penn State Law

American University, Washington College of Law

Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore

University of Maastricht

Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah Of Laws

University of Buenos Aires

Kenneth Wang School of Law

Session Fees
  • 7210 International Association of Law Schools Program - Part II: $0.00