Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract For various reasons, that will be recalled and analysed throughout this paper, interdisciplinarity has become the keyword for any debate on legal education reform. However, what is meant by interdisciplinarity and how it should be achieved is open for discussion. Paradigms of “scientificity” of the law vary dramatically among legal cultures. Whereas in the US the advent of a more ‘substantial’ legal thought after the New Deal went hand in hand with the rise of the interdisciplinary paradigm, in Europe the traditional assumption of law’s autonomy has repeatedly been challenged, eroded and adapted, but it still represents the bulwark of the orthodox approach to law and legal scholarship. In the Continent, mainstream legal scholarship does not take as its object the social reality, but only the gamut of rules recognized as binding norms. Coherent with this approach is a model of legal education built around certain axioms, such as the statist and nationalist attitude, the extreme compartmentalization among the various branches of law, and the blindness to its surroundings. Comparative law is one of the few disciplines that provide a different role model for a legal scholar who is apt to confront the challenges of complex societies. Keeping at a reasonable distance the authority paradigm, embodying the spirit of enquiry and cherishing the values of pluralism (both in terms of legal pluralism and cognitive openness), comparativists may give specific content to the paradigm of the jurist as a social engineer. Comparative law may therefore offer an invaluable contribution to the debate on legal education reform.
Giorgio Resta (Thu,) studied this question.