POL 300-02: Comparative Law
Professor Jason Pierce The
232
(937) 229-2596 Fall 2003 Semester
Jason.Pierce@notes.udayton.edu Office
Hours: Tues.,
Wed.,
and by appointment
COURSE DESCRIPTION
There is nothing that sets a man thinking and
Writing to such good effect about a system of
Law and its history as an acquaintance however
Slight with other systems and their history.
Frederic W. Maitland,
“Why the History of English Law Is Not Written” (1888)
Heeding Maitland’s advice, this
course is designed to provide students with a greater perspective on the
Why are these constitutional
systems worthy of our attention? In
short, Americans are accustom to a supreme court wielding a bill of rights and
judicial review powers to protect rights.
BUT, this approach is as often the exception as the rule. Other countries have crafted different
(better?) institutional solutions to rights protection. These four systems, in particular, have
arrived at fundamentally different solutions to rights protection. We'll survey and critique those alternatives,
in the process gaining a better perspective on the American system.
Although the course is listed as a 300-level, it will be conducted as an upper-level, advanced political science course. We'll be reading a good bit of material and some of the assignments will be rather unconventional. Having a constitutional law, constitutional history, or comparative politics course under your belt will only help.
The following four books are required and are available at the UD Bookstore.
Charles Epp, The Rights Revolution
Christopher Manfredi, Judicial Power and the Charter, 2nd ed.
George Williams, Human Rights Under the Australian Constitution
Jeremy Waldron, Law and Disagreement
When we are scheduled to discuss a particular book or article, please bring it with you to class.
A number of articles are on reserve at the Roesch Library. You can photocopy the articles or print them from E-Reserve.
This course will require that you come to each class prepared and ready
to engage the material and discussion for seventy-five minutes. This course will require a solid amount of
reading and time commitment. Don’t be
deceived by the quantity of pages assigned.
It’s dense and will take time.
This course pays its greatest dividends to those who persist, ask
questions, re-read, and engage the material.
No form of academic dishonesty will be tolerated. Academic dishonesty is defined in UD’s Bulletin as “any attempt by the student to obtain, or
to assist another student to obtain, a grade higher than honestly earned.” I ask each student to read and become
familiar with the university’s definitions and policies regarding academic
dishonesty (2002 Bulletin, pp. 66-68).
It is my policy to assign an F in the course for any student who commits academic dishonesty.
To ensure that all work completed for this course is done with
integrity, I will require every student to write out and sign on each
assignment the following pledge: “I am
aware of UD’s policies regarding academic
dishonesty. I have neither given nor
received any undue aid on this assignment.”
There will be no make-up exams or extensions on assignments, save for medical or other emergencies. Documentation will be required. Assignments will be considered late if they are not submitted at the designated time and be docked one letter grade for each twenty-four hours.
Your course grade will be determined using the newly adopted plus-minus system. I will use the following guide for translating numerical grades into letter grades:
A 97 - 100 B+ 87 - 89.9 C+ 77 - 79.9
A 94 - 96.9 B 84 - 86.9 C 74 - 76.9
A- 90 - 93.9 B- 80 - 83.9 C- 70 - 73.9
Your grade for the course will be based on class participation, a short paper (5-7 pages), a midterm exam, a comprehensive final exam, and a small group interview. The breakdown for your final grade is as follows:
Attendance and Participation 10%
Short paper and presentation 10%
Small group interview and follow-up presentation 20%
Midterm 30%
Final 30%
The class participation grade will be based on attendance and
contribution to class discussion. The
short paper will explore a current development in rights protection or rights
litigation in one of the countries. It
is designed to provide a sense of what is happening presently in one of the
countries. You will be asked to report
your findings to class (5-10 minutes).
The midterm and final exams will have in-class and take home components.
What’s the small group interview you ask? Four guest lecturers (one from each foreign
judicial system) will join the class to speak about a current topic, issue, or
controversy germane to their respective judicial system. Academics or legal practitioners from
The class will be divided into four groups. Each group will be responsible for taking the lead in “interviewing” the guest lecturer. I am not expecting you to be the expert, but rather I expect you to conduct enough research so your group knows what questions to ask. Each group will be in contact with their guest lecturer and me before the scheduled interviews. I will serve as a resource for each group, but your group is responsible for identifying and formulating relevant questions. In perfect form, the conversation will last about 45 minutes and bring to the class new information or perspectives on relevant issues within each judicial system. The group’s grade for the assignment will be based upon 1) the extent to which all members participated in background research and the interview itself, 2) the extent to which the group identified meaningful topics, questions, and follow-up questions, 3) a summary report/presentation to the class after the interview.
Some of these interviews will occur during our class
meetings. Because of the time
differences in
Your short paper and group interview cannot be on the same
country. If you’re assigned to interview our British expert, then your paper
cannot be on