Educating the Global Lawyer: The German Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A. Legal Regimes Law is tied to territory. Not counting the international legal system, four main different legal regimes are found in the world subdivided into national legal systems: civil law, common law, civil-common law (“bijuridical law”) and Islamic law. The answers mankind has found to establish rules, settle disputes, resolve torts and govern contracts can be described as related to these legal regimes. Civil law, consisting of codified norms describing answers to paradigmatic constellations of conflicts or torts, has its roots in Roman law and the Code Napoleon. Territorially-based jurisdictions still dominate legal thinking and legal education in Europe, Latin America, large parts of Asia and the French-speaking parts of Africa. In Germany, the Roman law tradition prevails today. In Great Britain, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the Indian subcontinent and the English-speaking parts of Africa, common law is the prevailing “method” to deal with legal affairs. In Arabic countries, Islamic law, derived from the Sharia, is used to organize human interaction. In a few countries—South Africa, the Quebec Province in Canada—bi-juridical regimes represent combinations of civil and common law. Globalization in the trade of goods and services gained speed with the deregulation of European law firms in the 1990s. Multinational law firms, mergers and coalitions lead to significant changes in the E.U. landscape. In Germany, the largest law firm in the mid-1980s consisted of some fifteen lawyers, ten of whom were equity partners. Today, seven of ten of the largest law firms in Germany bear British or U.S. names even if their business mainly involves Germany and most of their lawyers are trained in Germany. Today, one of the main challenges legal practitioners face is the increasingly international and complex context of their work. Understanding a single,
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".