(1) and (3) are such massive assertions of fact that they must, must be backed up by some facts, while (2) is transparently silly.

To believe (1), we have to believe that there are a large amount of International Law 1L jobs out there for the #55 national law school located in OHIO, not previously known as a hotbed of I-Law. Not only that, but we must believe that an actual I-Law course gives them an advantage over generic high legal grades. And even given that ALL THAT is true, who cares about a 1L summer unpaid internship? Does anyone think these lead into full-time post-grad jobs?

(2) is self-proving and ridiculous on its face. You have to take I-Law... to learn about I-Law! Look, if there was a foundational course in Legal Basket Weaving, which lead to numerous electives in seminar-level Basket Weaving, I would be equally unimpressed. The question is "Is I-Law useful?" not "Does Case Western pour money into this trendy legal topic?"

(3) is the usual self-serving nonsense all minor specialties churn out. I remember reading the same proposition in a set of papers about Video Game Law -- it's huge! It's everywhere! The question, again, is not whether there are I-Law aspects to some legal practices, but whether an I-Law course better prepares you then generic legal principles. Evidence suggests that even most I-Law is just Contracts on an international scale, and doesn't require reading treaties signed at the Hague.

Most law students taking Scharf's classes will accumulate six-digit nondischargeable debt. For Scharf to breezily assure them and the world that they will be well prepared for the many post-graduate I-Law jobs out there in Ohio without any recourse to facts or numbers is, at best, irresponsible.

I have to say that my response to this is along the lines of what Kevin! detailed above. It seems that a lot of schools offer their specialization in international law as a reason to attend, and that the notion of international law (or international arbitration, which is another favorite admissions buzzword) is vague enough that prospective students are not likely to be able to accurately assess whether many actual legal jobs involve it, and yet seemingly specific enough to offer good prospects. I would want to see statistics, which might be difficult to compile, but I suspect that the number of students who graduate from American law schools and then go on to work primarily in the field of international law is quite low.

And (3) is something that I hear asserted often, but that certainly doesn't seem to be correct with regard to U.S. law. Where I would differ with Kevin!, however, is that unlike with other parochial specializations, devotees of international law tend to assert this and similar claims with a sort of evangelistic fervor. That is, they don't just think this is true--they are actively working to make it the case that international law permeates U.S. law. I have mixed feelings about this project; I do not have the sort of reflexive hostility to international norms and legal institutions that many conservatives express, and indeed I can see some positive effects that international legal norms might have on U.S. law in the foreseeable future. However, there are aspects of foreign law--such as lesser speech protection for opinions deemed "hate speech" or disrespectful of certain religious groups--which could easily become incorporated into international law under general "human rights" standards, and which I view as clearly inferior to the U.S. approach of adopting a hands-off approach to even the most hateful and offensive sorts of speech.

we have 47 international law courses, seminars, and Labs to choose from at Case

You have to have a really BROAD definition of "international" to do this. One mention of the "international" aspects of whatever CONVERTS the course from contracts or whatever into "international contracts." It's just a marketing ploy. ;-)

It serves much the same purpose as the "law porn" that recently jams our faculty mailboxes.

Law Schools should adopt programs modeled off the high school "teen court" system. In this system, students can be the prosecution, defense, and juries for their peers who commit crimes.

By the time students are in law school, many of their peers will have already committed crimes at the international level (think for example of Uncle Pinochet's little helpers from U Chicago).

This way, law students can try their peers in international courts of justice and get good practice.

NS

That assumes that law students are better off taking knowledge-based courses rather then skill-development. I'm not sure that's true. You could make a very good case that law students need intensive training in research, writing, mediation, etc., far more then they need to pidgeonhole themselves into a subject.

Right now the system seems to be that law schools impart information while law firms are supposed to teach skills. This seems ass-backwards, particularly in periods of economic flux. How many new graduates just learned a boatload of securities and real estate?

Kevin!

You make some facutal assertions of your own which need some support.

1) When you state "the #55 national law school located in OHIO, not previously known as a hotbed of I-Law" are you stating that Case Western is not known as a hotbed of International Law, or that Cleveland isn't?

Case Western is actually pretty well known for its international law programs, so maybe it's just not known as a hotbed to you.

As for Cleveland, well, yeah it's Cleveland but it's more international than a lot of other cities. Some indicators are the Greater Cleveland International Lawyers Group and the International Law Section of the Cleveland Bar.
http://www.clemetrobar.org/lawyers_sections.asp?id=28&did=28

2) Not every laywer who practices international law does it as a full time job. It is oftentimes hard to find a full time gig as an international lawyer, but that doesn't mean the field doesn't have quite a few people practicing in it, it's just that they're doing so part time or pro bono. Look at all the asshats getting their international law fix defending detainees.

3) Your point in #2 is a bit of a stretch. The OP was looking at whether IL should be a 1L elective, it makes sense then if you're planning on taking upper class electives in IL to a have a foundation in the field. The logic would apply the same to upper level courses in gaming law, should they exist.

4) Regarding 1L unpaid summer internships. Well, in international law jobs, especially those at international tribunals or NGO's the unpaid summer job is the foot in the door and really the only way to get those types of jobs. OCI is populated with firms, mostly big ones, everyone else looking for jobs in all of the other places lawyers look really do need those unpaid summer jobs to get hired. Survey DA's offices and find out where they get their entry level hires...it's those unpaid summer jobs.

5) "Evidence suggests that even most I-Law is just Contracts on an international scale, and doesn't require reading treaties signed at the Hague." Wow, point me to that evidence. You mean to tell me everyone practicing in any facet of international law is really just a contracts expert. I want to see that evidence because it is, to use a phrase such a massive assertion of fact that it must, must be backed up by some facts.

6) Your final point is curious because it assumes that law students can't figure these things out for themselves. Moreover it assumes some bad faith on the part of the OP, and seems to suggest that he is "breezily" convincing a bunch of naive students that they will land international law jobs that will pay off their debt. The irresponsibility lies with students who don't carefully research their career prospects, and faculty and staff who mislead them. I doubt Scharf is telling students "These jobs are easy to get and you'll make a mint." Just like criminal law professors aren't telling students taking on six figure debt that the PD's office is the place to go to pay it off. Students are adults, they need to figure these things out on their own and in most cases faculty are their to guide them and provide them the mentorship they need, not counsel them on the ins and outs of their law school financing decisions.

Otherwise, you make good points.

More "hotbed" evidence:

From here:

In Cleveland/NE Ohio:

Current international business activity:
– Approximately two-thirds of businesses surveyed have been engaged in at least some international
business activity
– More than half of respondents who have been engaged in international business have been doing so for
more than 15 years
– Exporting and importing goods and services was the most common type of international business activity
that companies are engaged in
– On average, companies participated in three different types of international business activities
– On average, companies engaged in international business with five different countries
– Canada and Mexico were the most common business partners, followed by China, UK, and Germany

Intended growth of international business activities:
– Nearly three-fourths (74%) of firms surveyed currently have a goal to increase their levels of
international business
– Companies were most likely to indicate a desire to increase importing and exporting activities (54%
want to increase importing; 82% want to increase exporting)

Legal services’ role in international business activities:
– 57% of respondents indicated that they require legal counsel to conduct
international business activities
– Of these respondents:
• 30% use in-house counsel
• 68% use outside attorneys based in Northeast Ohio
• 34% use outside attorneys based in the U.S. but outside Northeast Ohio
• 32% use outside attorneys based outside the U.S.
(many respondents reported using attorneys in multiple categories)
– Firms spent a median of $5,000 on outside counsel for international business
issues (in their most recent fiscal year)
– The mean spending on outside counsel was $55,000 (several firms reported
spending more than $100,000)

Perhaps IL is not the waste of time many commenters are making it out to be.

If students want to take a class, choose a law school based on that class, and utilize that class in internships, or even jobs, then that should be ample enough reason to continue offering International Law to 1Ls. If, as Scharf says, 50% of Case Western's 1L class takes an international law elective, then cutting it would disappoint 1/2 of an incoming class. So even putting the "practicality discussion" aside, the students choose to take it and continue each year to take it, so the school should continue to offer it.

More specifically, I am one of those Case alums who took International Law as a 1L. It was a large reason why I was able to work at an international human rights NGO in London after my first summer. Many of the internships I looked at made it clear that some international law course was required to apply.

Kevin! stated that "... who cares about a 1L summer unpaid internship? Does anyone think these lead into full-time post-grad jobs?" First of all, many students would want the experience of working abroad even if the chance of getting a job is low. No, I did not continue to work at that London NGO or where I worked in SE Asia. However, I still value the experience. The fact that there are many people who do not choose to take a full-time job at the place they had an international internships highlights even more why it is important for students to have this option after their 1L summer instead of after their 2L summer. Many students, no matter what field they work in after their 1L year, choose a different job after school.

Second, as Barrister's Handshake said, taking an internship is often the route that young lawyers need to take to break into the international law field. I know other interns (some from Case Western and some not) who did turn their internships into full-time jobs.

Moreover, taking international law internships can help you get U.S.-based jobs. Particularly in this job climate, it is important to find a way to differentiate yourself. My current domestic employer made clear that one of the reasons I was chosen for my job is that I chose to work abroad during law school. My employer recognizes that living and working abroad can bring important perspectives to legal issues.

Therefore, given that students want to take International Law as 1Ls and given that this class can lead to internships and given that some students turn their internships into jobs, Case Western and other schools should continue to offer the elective to 1L classes.

when students at top schools with journal experience cannot find legal jobs.

Is this true? Do you have a cite?

It seems that Eric and his critics are talking past each other. Eric is saying that public international law is largely useless as a practical matter. Every single rejoinder I have read has emphasized that international law "is becoming pervasive in the practice of law in the United States," in such fields as property and family law. But this plainly refers to private international law, such as cross-jurisdictional enforcement of judgments. Private international law is highly useful to regular practice, but it receives far less attention in a regular international law course than the public international law stuff like human rights and the laws of war. This is not surprising, plenty of students find human rights law and the laws of war intellectually interesting, like students find con law interesting. But everyone should also acknowledge that it is largely useless in practice.

I will respond (briefly) having been mentioned in the previous comment:

1. I hesitated to use the actual name of the poster who went by "Case Alum". However, given that is was available to anyone who looked at the email link, and given that this alum was of recent vintage (this summer) and was an RA for the professor of the course in question, I thought that information might be of interest. I did not go to Case, know close to nothing about the school, but do believe that in my experience the quality that one student ascribes to a course with a professor with whom they have a long-lasting mentor relationship with is usually different than that of the rest of the student body.

2. I am unsure why the previous poster wrote, "I am sorry that you could not use your favorite class to help you in life, but that is your own fault, not Marguax Day's. To personally insult her* not only speaks to your character, but also points out your own personal jealousy toward someone who turned her interest in international law into a success story. As posted earlier, it looks like you need to take some personal responsibility. " I wrote that the most *useful* class I ever took was Conflict of Laws- which is true. It is incredibly useful to me, and, as an intellectually stimulating class, was incredibly fun as well. However, I think for the vast majority of practicing lawyers, the class would be near-useless (quick review- when in doubt, default to the forum state). While I am sure that we could now compare the vault number of our respective firms or the prestige of the COA of the judges we clerked for, that's as unseemly as the jerkoff waiting to drop the "H" bomb in a conversation ("Oh... I went to a law school in the northeast... oh... um... yeah... in Cambridge.) Besides, the previous poster now works at a "top 100 law firm". Well, after the deferral. Defensive, much?

*the personal insult? I wrote she was the class of 2009, and she was a research assistant to the professor. Wait- here's the full text: "Personally, I am not entirely convinced when Case Alum (aka Margaux Day, class of 2009 and Michael Scharf's research assistant) wades in to defend her mentor. A personal experience does not translate into a ringing endorsement for everyone." Man... that's just... so harsh! I am so personally insulting!

3. Again, I wrote that I have no problem with International Law. Just like I have no problem with, oh, poverty law, or employment law, or family law. What I think is funny, to me, is the number of places that now emphasize international law, compared to the number of actual jobs in the field. International law has a high sexy/jobs ratio, and I think it does a disservice to aspiring law students to teach it their first year. I think the core classes are (somewhat) more useful as foundational classes, and if there is to be a change, perhaps something along the lines of administrative law, which is becoming increasingly prevalent (even though my own particular area never encounters it) might be rotated in. However, of the people I know that have gone into "International Law-y" type jobs, many (I hesitate to say most, as I don't feel like doing a count right now) did not bother with my school's international law track. Moreover, I am somewhat confused by the references to people who have not been able to get jobs because they didn't have one class or another; in my limited experience of not too long ago, the requirements were:
1. Law Review
2. Moot Court (the real one, not the bogus one)
3. Secondary Journals/Trial Team/Secondary Moot Court (Maybe)
4. Foreign Language (for some firms)
5. GPA requirement
That's it. Some judges had strong preferences for students who had Federal Courts (Fed. Jurisdiction) or advanced Civil Procedure classes, and of course you needed some bankruptcy to go for bankruptcy clerkships.... but I don't remember a single employer making a requirement of having taken international law. Then again, I didn't attend Chase, so YMMV.

4. Finally, and without sounding too paranoid, the pro-Chase comments have a certain quality to them. I'm just sayin'. I know y'all have to try harder there in Ohio, but there's a fine line between wholesome pride and sweaty desperation. :)

I am going to add some final thoughts to this dying thread:

I stand corrected. Unbeknownst to me, a small school in Ohio with the 16th-ranked international law program (or some such) is just churning out an endless variety of both anonymous and (one not-so-anonymous RA) posters to defend the general utility of international law. Go figure.

When it comes the 1L curriculum, I guess I am a little bit reactionary. I don't necessarily see the advantage of having *any* electives your first year. One reason for this is practical- outside of the T14, the first year grades matter a great deal, and while there will be some natural variance due to the professors, there is a great advantage for the *students* knowing that they took a homogenous courseload when there might be competition for employers, clerkships, and spots on law review based on their GPA.

And of the courses that are offered, there is a pretty standard mix- property, contracts, conlaw, torts, crimlaw, civpro, and some sort of legal skills/writing/advocacy class take up the vast bulk, leaving little room for experimentation.

(Note that this isn't set in stone- some schools set conlaw in the second year, for example.)

So that brings us to the question- what courses would be *most* useful to the *most* students? Here is where the interesting questions come in, and where teachers try and advocate for their parochial interests. Talk to an ADR teacher, and they'll tell you that it's important for all soon-to-be lawyers to be exposed to it as soon as possible. What about evidence? That's pretty important, eh? Also on the bar. How about corporations- useful for transactional and litigation work. Family law? Yeah, that's a big percentage of cases in this country. Wills and estates? Choice of Law? Remedies? Professional Responsibility? Criminal Procedure? Administrative law? Adminlaw is so important some schools have already moved it into their first year.

But international law? Yes, it's super sexy. Yes, it attracts very smart professors who get to go to very nice conferences. But in terms of the number of real jobs that require it (as opposed to a job that has some interaction with some aspect such that you might need to quickly consult a treatise), it ranks well under everything from employment law to construction law (and just ahead of space law :) ), which makes it perfect for a second or third year elective course. I have seen nothing that makes me think that IL is better than any number of other courses as part of the 1L curriculum, which is what I thought the OP was about. Compare the number of jobs, for lawyers, at the State Department and at Hague as opposed to the number of jobs that would require, or administrative law, or CrimPro, and get back to me.