Introduction : Legal revolutions, cosmopolitan legal elites, and interconnected histories -- Learned law, legal education, social capital, and states : European Geneses of these relationships and the enduring role of family capital -- Legal hybrids, corporate law firms, the Langdellian Revolution in legal education, and the Construction of a U.S.-oriented international justice through an alliance of U.S. corporate lawyers with European professors -- Social and neo-liberal revolutions in the United States -- India : an embattled senior bar, the marginalization of legal knowledge, and an internationalized challenge -- Hong Kong as a paradigm case : an open market for corporate law firms and the technologies of legal education reform as Chinese hegemony grows -- South Korea and Japan : contrasting attacks through legal education reform on the traditional conservative and insular bar -- Legal education, international strategies, and rebuilding the value of legal capital in China / coauthored with Zhizhou Wang -- Conclusion : Combining social capital with learned capital: competing on different imperial paths.

What is the effect of revolutions on legal systems? What role do constitutions play in legitimating regimes? How do constitutions and revolutions converge or clash? Taking the Arab Spring as its case study, this book explores the role of law and constitutions during societal upheavals, and critically evaluates the different trajectories they could follow in a revolutionary setting. The book urges a rethinking of major categories in political, legal, and constitutional theory in light of the Arab Spring. The book is a novel and comprehensive examination of the constitutional order that preceded and followed the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Jordan, Algeria, Oman, and Bahrain. It also provides the first thorough discussion of the trials of former regime officials in Egypt and Tunisia. Drawing on a wide range of primary sources, including an in-depth analysis of recent court rulings in several Arab countries, the book illustrates the contradictory roles of law and constitutions. The book also contrasts the Arab Spring with other revolutionary situations and demonstrates how the Arab Spring provides a laboratory for examining scholarly ideas about revolutions, legitimacy, legality, continuity, popular sovereignty, and constituent power.

In 1917, the October Revolution and the adoption of the revolutionary Mexican Constitution shook the foundations of the international order in profound, unprecedented and lasting ways. These events posed fundamental challenges to international law, unsettling foundational concepts of property, statehood and non-intervention, and indeed the very nature of law itself. This collection asks what we might learn about international law from analysing how its various sub-fields have remembered, forgotten, imagined, incorporated, rejected or sought to manage the revolutions of 1917. It shows that those revolutions had wide-ranging repercussions for the development of laws relating to the use of force, intervention, human rights, investment, alien protection and state responsibility, and for the global economy subsequently enabled by international law and overseen by international institutions. The varied legacies of 1917 play an ongoing role in shaping political struggle in the form of international law.

This book argues that the introduction of popular sovereignty as the basis for government in France facilitated a dramatic transformation in international law in the eighteenth century.

The roots of modern Western legal institutions and concepts go back nine centuries to the Papal Revolution, when the Western church established its political and legal unity and its independence from emperors, kings, and feudal lords. Out of this upheaval came the Western idea of integrated legal systems consciously developed over generations and centuries. Harold J. Berman describes the main features of these systems of law, including the canon law of the church, the royal law of the major kingdoms, the urban law of the newly emerging cities, feudal law, manorial law, and mercantile law. In the coexistence and competition of these systems he finds an important source of the Western belief in the supremacy of law. Written simply and dramatically, carrying a wealth of detail for the scholar but also a fascinating story for the layman, the book grapples with wide-ranging questions of our heritage and our future. One of its main themes is the interaction between the Western belief in legal evolution and the periodic outbreak of apocalyptic revolutionary upheavals. Berman challenges conventional nationalist approaches to legal history, which have neglected the common foundations of all Western legal systems. He also questions conventional social theory, which has paid insufficient attention to the origin of modern Western legal systems and has therefore misjudged the nature of the crisis of the legal tradition in the twentieth century.

As the title suggests, A Revolution in the International Rule of Law: Essays in Honor of Don Wallace, Jr. is a European style Festschrift or Liber Amicorum, and compiles short essays by eminent scholars and practitioners who have known Prof. Wallace during his long and distinguished career as a Professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and, among others, as the Chairman of the International Law Institute, the U.S. Delegate to UNCITRAL, the Legal Adviser to the USAID, President of the ABA Section on International Law, presiding officer of the UNIDROIT Foundation, and Of Counsel to a number of prominent international law firms including Winston & Strawn LLP, Morgan Lewis LLP, Arnold & Porter LLP, and Shearman & Sterling LLP. The primary topics covered in the book are: Foreign Investment and Political RiskInternational Investment Law and ArbitrationUnification of Private LawCommercial Law ReformPublic ProcurementRule of Law and Transitional JusticeInternational Business Law and Human RightsLegal Aspects of the United States' Foreign Affairs: Public International Law, Separation of Powers and Terrorism. Professor Wallace's friends, including the co-editors, have submitted 45 essays including a biographical piece prepared by the editors to this volume.

John Phillip Reid addresses the central constitutional issues that divided the American colonists from their English legislators: the authority to tax, the authority to legislate, the security of rights, the nature of law, the foundation of constitutional government in custom and contractarian theory, and the search for a constitutional settlement.

What were the intentions of the Founders? Was the American constitution designed to protect individual rights? To limit the powers of government? To curb the excesses of democracy? Or to create a robust democratic nation-state? These questions echo through today's most heated legal and political debates. In this powerful new interpretation of America's origins, Max Edling argues that the Federalists were primarily concerned with building a government that could act vigorously in defense of American interests. The Constitution transferred the powers of war making and resource extraction from the states to the national government thereby creating a nation-state invested with all the important powers of Europe's eighteenth-century "fiscal-military states." A strong centralized government, however, challenged the American people's deeply ingrained distrust of unduly concentrated authority. To secure the Constitution's adoption the Federalists had to accommodate the formation of a powerful national government to the strong current of anti-statism in the American political tradition. They did so by designing a government that would be powerful in times of crisis, but which would make only limited demands on the citizenry and have a sharply restricted presence in society. The Constitution promised the American people the benefit of government without its costs. Taking advantage of a newly published letterpress edition of the constitutional debates, A Revolution in Favor of Government recovers a neglected strand of the Federalist argument, making a persuasive case for rethinking the formation of the federal American state.