In a nutshell, what is the School of Transnational Law?
The STL introduces the first Juris Doctor programme with American law content taught by US professors in China. It is a highly innovative and very challenging enterprise.

How was the programme conceived and implemented?
The programme was initiated by Hai Wen, the Vice-President of Peking University, who recruited Jeffrey Lehman, who has considerable experience in legal education in the US. They put together a proposal which was approved by the State Council in record time. The STL was then set up at the Graduate Campus of Peking University in Shenzhen掇 Nanshan District. Students were recruited ?I was involved with two selection rounds held in Beijing ?and we started teaching our first group of 55 students in September 2008.

Although the JD is an American-style degree, most local JDs teach local law. Why does the STL JD teach US law?
Most of the law is American law because the object is to achieve accreditation by the American Bar Association. Accreditation is required in most US States in order to take the bar exams. All the normal American core subjects have to be included. For example, contract law is American contract law. Civil procedure is mainly American federal rules of civil procedure, although it is taught in a comparative perspective with reference to the UK, and some Continental, Hong Kong and Chinese elements come into it as well. From the next academic year, the programme will expand to include an additional year of Chinese law, to prepare the students for a dual qualification in both the US and China.

The programme is also geared towards the American model of teaching. As is usual in American programmes, we emphasise skills training, including legal research, legal writing and advocacy, and the development of analytical capacity. In the usual style of American law school teaching, the Socratic method is widely used, so students are confronted with questions and have to think without necessarily getting direct answers.

What is the transnational aspect of the programme and how does it balance against the primary goal of ABA accreditation?
It is called the School of Transnational Law because we are trying to teach American law in a transnational context ?both in the senses of transnational business and intercultural aspects. The dedicated courses in transnational law are built upon three elements. First, comparative law, comparing common law, Continental systems, Chinese law and others, primarily at a macro level. Second, public international law, and its relation to national law. Third, private international law, or conflicts of law, together with elements of international arbitration, to bring to the understanding of the students the relevance of alternative dispute resolution for international business disputes.

It is a broad concept of transnational law, such as Philip Jessup originally formulated in the 1950s, but it focuses on a modern understanding of how international business transactions are primarily structured and driven by the activities of multinational corporations worldwide. Considerations and questions of investing and operating in different jurisdictions play a large role. This is taken from the viewpoint of not only multinational corporations but also multinational law firms who are supporting these corporations.

Can you tell me more about the students: who they are, where they come from, how they were selected and what they have to offer?
The students were selected according to the admission criteria of Peking University, which are high. They come from different parts of China, and two were recruited from Taiwan. From the next academic year, STL will start to take admissions from the US, Europe and other countries.

Some of our students have studied law, but most have non-law degrees. Some are medical doctors, some are engineers, and many of them have studied English. They are very motivated and bright students, and I find it very rewarding as a teacher to work with them. It is also a very tight-knit group: they work closely together in study groups, trying to help each other overcome initial difficulties, which have to do with not only content but also the adjustment that is necessary from the linguistic point of view.

The market for our students in the long run will be multinational law firms and multinational companies who have an interest in China. These organisations want graduates who are adaptable to multicultural environments. Chinese companies who have an outward investment interest will also want graduates who understand the American context, thinking, terminology and so forth. There may also be roles for them in government, such as with local governments dealing with foreign investment issues.

In America, students are encouraged from a very young age to voice opinions, argue points, question authority and so on. This seems to be a point of difference with Chinese education systems. How are you finding the task of engaging with your students using the Socratic method?
It is quite correct that Chinese students have not been exposed to the Socratic method. They have been exposed to a traditional form of teaching where the students normally play a passive role. The case law method is also a new challenge to them. They are used to being presented with a theory then applying the theory to facts. The case law method works exactly the other way around: requiring them to start from the facts of the case, develop the rules and then use the rules as a patchwork to develop further rules, gradually building up the theoretical framework so that the larger picture emerges.

The students' response to the Socratic method depends on which teacher is using it, because the method can be handled quite differently. My approach is to provide the main questions in advance - but only at the start of the lecture, so that students don't tailor their preparation to the questions when they are reading the literature - and then supplement those with more specific questions orally.

The students' reaction after the first module was that they were not at all used to the method, but that they adjusted and could see its benefits. They understood that it stimulates their thinking and develops critical understanding of the text they are working with, and that it shows the limitations of legal reasoning by questioning the assumptions on which cases are decided. That is very helpful because it demonstrates the relativity of legal argument, which for the adversarial process is eminently important.

What do you think are the prospects of these methods catching on in other law schools in China? Is it hoped that the STL will be regarded as an example that other law schools might, in time, wish to follow, and that a difference can be made to how law is approached in the Mainland?
If it is successful, which I hope and I am confident that it will be, then I believe the STL could have a model function for rethinking legal education and curriculum reform in China. I am sure that this is one reason why the State Council was so interested in supporting the adoption of this programme and why it is receiving so much support.

Brendan Clift

在東方闢蹊徑
《香港律師》與北京大學國際法學院的CV Starr Professor of Law馬培德教授談論中國大陸開辦的首個美式法律課程。

可否請您簡要介紹一下北京大學國際法學院 (School of Transnational Law) (STL) 的情況?
北京大學國際法學院是中國第一所開設國際法律碩士(JD)課程的法學院，課程乃參照美國法學院教學內容進行設置，並由美國法學教授講授課程。這是一個高度創新性，也是一個極富挑戰性的事業。

設立這一課程的最初構想及實施過程是怎樣的?
這一課程最初由北京大學副校長海聞先生親自創建，並聘請雷蒙(Jeffrey Lehman)教授加入。雷蒙教授具有在美國從事法律教育的豐富經歷。兩位專家當時向國務院提出建議，並迅即獲得國務院批准。之後國際法學院在深圳市南山區的北京大學深圳研究生院建立。隨後開始了招生工作—我當時參與了在北京進行的兩輪學員選拔—之後我們於2008年9月正式開展對55名首批招錄的學生的教學。

儘管國際法律碩士(JD)課程是一種具有美國特色的學位課程，國內的法律碩士課程多以教授本地法律為主。那麼，北大國際法學院為何選擇以美國法律作為主要的課程內容?
我們教授的課程大多數為美國法律，這是因為我們最終的目標是要取得美國律師協會(ABA)的評審。美國大多數州都規定在參加律師資格考試時必須先要通過ABA的評審。因此我們的課程中應當包含所有一般性的美國核心課程。比如，我們要講授的合同法是美國的合同法。又比如，對於民事訴訟程序來說，我們教學時採用的主要依據是美國聯邦對於民事訴訟程序方面訂立的規章，但在具體授課時我們依然會採取比較方法，參考英國、某些歐洲大陸國家、香港以及中國的某些法律元素開展教學。

課程設置時，還充分考慮了美國教學模式。按照美國普遍的課程教學特點，我們強調技能訓練，包括法律研究、法律文書寫作與訟辯，以及分析能力的開發培養。一般的美國法律學院在教學過程中往往較多採用蘇格拉底式教學法進行，因此學生會面對各種問題，並且需要發動思考，但不一定要給出確定答案。

這一課程的國際性特色如何體現？同時，這種國際性教學如何保持與通過ABA評審這一首要目標之間的平衡?
我們取名「國際法學院」，因為我們希望在一個國際化的背景下開展美國法的教學。所謂國際化，一是表明在跨國商務的背景下，同時也體現其跨文化的法律教學特色。國際法學的專業課程是建立在三個元素之上。第一，比較法學，旨在於教學中將普通法、大陸法、中國法以及其他的法律體系加以對比，這種對比主要以宏觀層面為基礎。第二，國際公法及其與本國法的聯繫。第三，國際私法，或稱衝突法，連同國際仲裁的一些元素在內，希望學生藉此理解在處理國際商事爭議時所採取的各種爭議解決替代方案的相關性。

這是一個關於跨國法律的寬泛概念，正如Philip Jessup在50年代所原來制定的那樣，但是更為強調對國際業務交易如何結構及如何由全球跨國企業的業務驅動等方面的現代理解。在教學當中，將會著重在不同司法管轄區投資和運作等問題，而我們的觀點不僅取自跨國公司，亦包括為這些跨國公司提供支援的國際律師事務所。

可否請您談談這裡的學生：他們具有甚麼身分?來自哪裡?以及，如何選招學生和需要具備甚麼條件?
國際法學院的學生是按照北京大學制定的招生條件選招的，挑選的標準頗高。他們來自中國各地。有些曾經具有法律專業學習背景，但大多數是具備非法律學位。他們有些是醫生，有些是工程師，還有很多原來是修讀英文的。他們學習的主動性很高，接受能力也非常強，而我發現和這些學生一起學習真的是一件非常有意義的事情。這個學生集體也非常團結：他們在分組學習研究時合作意識極強，能夠高度互助，力求克服開始階段的困難。事實上，剛開始的時候，無論是對於學習的課程內容本身，還是語言的調整等各個方面，都必然有一些問題需要努力克服。

長遠來說，我們法學院的學生畢業後，就業的主要市場是有意進入中國市場的跨國律師事務所及跨國公司。這些機構往往需要一些熟悉跨文化環境的畢業生，而有意投資海外的中國公司同樣渴求有了解美國情況、思維、表達用語等方面素質的畢業生加入。我們的畢業生在政府部門也將有所作為，例如處理外國投資等事務的地方政府部門都需要這方面的人才。

在美國，學生從很小開始就受到鼓勵，要勇於表達自己的看法，圍繞觀點不同進行辯論，質疑挑戰權威等。就這些方面來說，美國的教育制度與中國教育制度似乎存在差異。您覺得自己在推動這裡的學生積極參與蘇格拉底式討論方面成效如何﹖
是的，中國學生以前是很少接觸這種對話式的教學方式。他們多年來習慣的是被動接受的傳統教學模式。案例式法律教學方法對於這些學生來說其實也是一個新挑戰。他們習慣的是老師講解理論，然後把這些理論運用於現實生活。而案例方式的法律教學則是完全另外一種模式：我們要求學生從案例的事實出發，由此整理出一些規律，然後利用這些規律再進而思考，歸納出更多的規律，從而逐步建立起理論框架，直至一個更寬闊的畫面呈現出來。

學生們對於蘇格拉底式教學方法的反應取決於應用這種方法的老師，因為運用之妙，各有千秋。我個人採納的方法是預先提出主要的問題—但是僅在授課開始時提出—從而避免學生在預習材料時便已經設下答案—我會在講座中段以口頭方式，提出更多具體的問題，從而對最初提出的問題加以補充。

在第一個課程單元完成之後，學生們的反應是，他們還是不太適應這種方法，但他們在調整自己，而且領會到它帶來的好處。他們理解這種對話式教學可以激發他們的思維，並發展他們對於所學教材的批判性理解，並藉著對作為裁決案件基礎的各項假設提出質疑，領會到法律推理的局限之處。這是非常有益的，因為這種過程體現出法律論證的相對性，而這對於辯論式法律制度而言是至關重要的。

你認為這種方法今後會否在中國的其他法律學院被沿襲採用?學院方面是否預期STL未來會成為其他法學院仿效的模式?同時，人們會否因為STL而發現，在中國大陸進行法學探求可以另有其他途徑?
如果北大國際法學院辦學成功—我希望如此，而且我堅信不疑—那麼我相信STL必將在人們重新審視中國的法律教育與課程改革方面，起到一種示範作用。我相信，這也是國務院對我們的計畫表示出極大興趣，並對課程予以批准，以及學院開辦以來備受支持的一個重要原因。


祁秉麟