English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Clinical legal education has achieved widespread acceptance throughout the world, growing by leaps and bounds during recent decades in countries like Russia and China, and expanding rapidly in other areas of Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa. It is, arguably, the most significant innovation in legal education since the “invention” of the Socratic-case method in the United States, at the turn of the 20th Century. There is, however, one geographic area where the philosophy and methodology of clinical legal education has been resisted. That area is Continental Western Europe (the UK has something of a tradition of clinics, though stunted). This article examines the reasons for resistance to clinical theory and practice as part of law school curricula in Western European law schools. Some of that resistance lies in history and structure of legal education and the legal profession, particularly the organization and power of the law school professoriate. The article further suggests that the Bologna process of European integration in all fields of education may provide opportunities for innovation in clinics through law school curricular reform. The doctrinal area of international human rights law and practice may provide further inroads into that resistance.

Western Europe: Last Holdout in the Worldwide Acceptance of Clinical Legal Education