法律能否在法律教育中生存

IF 2.4 3区社会学 Q1 LAW

Vanderbilt Law Review Pub Date : 2007-03-01 DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660643.003.0010

E. Weinrib

{"title":"法律能否在法律教育中生存","authors":"E. Weinrib","doi":"10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660643.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Legal education exists at the confluence of three activities that reciprocally affect one another: legal practice, the enterprise of understanding that practice, and university study. The disjunction between legal practice and university study has been criticised for its attendant disservice to the legal profession. This article argues that the disjunction arises out of the different understandings of law that animate legal practice and contemporary university study. Focussing on private law and using the example of economic analysis, the article underlines the role of instrumentalist understandings of law in mischaracterizing legal practice. It also sketches a different mode of legal understanding that both respects legal practice and affirms private law as a component of our intellectual inheritance worthy of university study in its own terms. Finally, the article discusses the use of nuisance cases in Coase's famous article on social cost, in order to show the shortcomings of the current conception of interdisciplinary study. By marking out the distinctive mode of thinking and discourse in law, the author points to a conception of the core of legal education that links the three activities of practice, understanding, and university study.","PeriodicalId":47503,"journal":{"name":"Vanderbilt Law Review","volume":"60 1","pages":"401"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2007-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Law Survive Legal Education\",\"authors\":\"E. Weinrib\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660643.003.0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Legal education exists at the confluence of three activities that reciprocally affect one another: legal practice, the enterprise of understanding that practice, and university study. The disjunction between legal practice and university study has been criticised for its attendant disservice to the legal profession. This article argues that the disjunction arises out of the different understandings of law that animate legal practice and contemporary university study. Focussing on private law and using the example of economic analysis, the article underlines the role of instrumentalist understandings of law in mischaracterizing legal practice. It also sketches a different mode of legal understanding that both respects legal practice and affirms private law as a component of our intellectual inheritance worthy of university study in its own terms. Finally, the article discusses the use of nuisance cases in Coase's famous article on social cost, in order to show the shortcomings of the current conception of interdisciplinary study. By marking out the distinctive mode of thinking and discourse in law, the author points to a conception of the core of legal education that links the three activities of practice, understanding, and university study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vanderbilt Law Review\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"401\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vanderbilt Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660643.003.0010\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vanderbilt Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660643.003.0010","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 8

摘要

法律教育存在于三种相互影响的活动的交汇处:法律实践、理解法律实践的事业和大学学习。法律实践和大学学习之间的脱节因其对法律职业的损害而受到批评。本文认为，这种脱节是由法律实践和当代大学学习中对法律的不同理解引起的。本文以私法为重点，以经济分析为例，强调了工具主义对法律的理解在错误描述法律实践中的作用。它还概述了一种不同的法律理解模式，既尊重法律实践，又肯定私法是我们知识遗产的一个组成部分，值得大学以自己的方式学习。最后，本文讨论了科斯著名文章《社会成本论》中妨害案件的运用，以显示当前跨学科研究概念的不足。通过指出其独特的法律思维和话语模式，作者提出了一种将实践、理解和大学学习三个活动联系起来的法律教育核心概念。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Can Law Survive Legal Education

Legal education exists at the confluence of three activities that reciprocally affect one another: legal practice, the enterprise of understanding that practice, and university study. The disjunction between legal practice and university study has been criticised for its attendant disservice to the legal profession. This article argues that the disjunction arises out of the different understandings of law that animate legal practice and contemporary university study. Focussing on private law and using the example of economic analysis, the article underlines the role of instrumentalist understandings of law in mischaracterizing legal practice. It also sketches a different mode of legal understanding that both respects legal practice and affirms private law as a component of our intellectual inheritance worthy of university study in its own terms. Finally, the article discusses the use of nuisance cases in Coase's famous article on social cost, in order to show the shortcomings of the current conception of interdisciplinary study. By marking out the distinctive mode of thinking and discourse in law, the author points to a conception of the core of legal education that links the three activities of practice, understanding, and university study.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Vanderbilt Law Review LAW-

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is an online forum designed to advance scholarly discussion. En Banc offers professors, practitioners, students, and others an opportunity to respond to articles printed in the Vanderbilt Law Review. En Banc permits extended discussion of our articles in a way that maintains academic integrity and provides authors with a quicker approach to publication. When reexamining a case “en banc” an appellate court operates at its highest level, with all judges present and participating “on the bench.” We chose the name “En Banc” to capture this spirit of focused review and provide a forum for further dialogue where all can be present and participate.