McConnaughay院长受访于世界知名法律杂志

近日,北京大学国际法学院院长Philip McConnaughay受访于In-House Community,该杂志在雇主中受众欢迎,阅读量高。以下是采访全文:

The thing about … Philip McConnaughay

43beb0f653835bdba4f34cda3dc89223_QA-PM-2-1024x749

The dean of Peking University School of Transnational Law in Shenzhen discusses the development of legal education in China.

Asian-mena Counsel: What is the background of the Peking University School of Transnational Law, Shenzhen (STL) — when was it founded and what is its purpose?

Philip McConnaughay: STL was established in 2008 by special authorisation of China’s State Council. The founding dean was Jeffrey Lehman, a former president of Cornell University and dean of the University of Michigan Law School. The idea was to establish an American-style law school at China’s leading university that would be accredited by the American Bar Association [ABA]. The goal was to provide China’s top students the option of earning an internationally recognised Juris Doctor degree in China, while simultaneously providing an educational model that would help advance legal education and the legal profession in China.

STL took a detour of sorts in 2012 after the ABA refused to extend its accreditation jurisdiction outside of the US and Puerto Rico, and founding dean Lehman left to establish NYU’s Shanghai campus. That’s when I joined STL. We retained STL’s original purpose of providing an elite graduate-level common law JD education in China, but we expanded our mission by reforming and elevating our China Law Juris Master [JM] curriculum to include the “case study” and Socratic questioning methods of instruction typical of American legal education, both of which represent significant innovations in China legal education, and emphasising the new transnational legal and commercial principles likely to emerge from the rapidly expanding economic exchange between China and the West.

Most recently, we have been adding elements to our curriculum that focus on the legal and commercial traditions of Central and South Asia and the Middle East, all regions of growing importance in terms of China’s economic engagement.

The evolving economic integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong, together with Shenzhen’s role as a gateway for China’s Belt and Road Initiative, offers what is probably the world’s most exciting and dynamic legal environment for STL’s unique approach to legal education.

In a nutshell, STL’s dual Common Law JD-China Law JM programme, which is unique in China and the world, has been wildly successful. Demand for STL graduates among China’s and the world’s leading law firms, multinational companies, government offices and NGOs is so high we are not able to meet it. We have negotiated alternative routes to American bar exam access for STL students that do not depend on ABA accreditation. There is keen interest in STL’s approach to legal education both within China and worldwide, and we are beginning to see other law schools emulate aspects of our approach. Perhaps most gratifying, STL graduates are becoming leaders of China’s growing legal profession, fully equipped to handle the sophisticated transactions and disputes increasingly characteristic of China’s advanced internationalised economy, traditionally almost exclusively the province of blue-chip Anglo-American firms.

AMC: How has the legal profession changed since you first graduated? Does STL provide all the training required for the ‘modern’ lawyer, or are there areas for improvement?

PM: The legal profession has undergone multiple changes since I first began practising law, both in the nature of services required and in methods of delivery. The demographics of the profession (thankfully), the rise of technology and electronic discovery, the use of alternative billing methods, the ability to work and partner remotely, and many other aspects of the profession all have changed quite dramatically. Although much of the law remains local and geographically defined and applied, the change I view as most fundamental has been the internationalisation of legal services. The best lawyers today are those prepared to contend fairly and knowledgeably with the interaction between different legal systems and traditions, and with the often fundamentally different expectations of parties from different traditions. Today’s lawyers must be prepared to acknowledge, respect and help find solutions when different traditions and expectations — even, at times, different notions of truth and justice — are present in a single transaction or dispute. I view this as both an intellectual and ethical responsibility of the profession. Yes, I believe STL prepares our students for this challenge.

AMC: In an era where we are encouraged to countenance multiple careers, your own has included not only being one of the only foreigners to hold a leadership position at Peking University, but also a senior partner at Morrison & Foerster (MoFo). How does a career in academia compare to a career in corporate law?

PM: Well, I have been very fortunate in that both aspects of my career, practising law and academics, have been incredibly interesting and rewarding. The thing I enjoyed most about practicing law is the constantly changing problems of significance that lawyers help address. My academic career really has had two dimensions, being professor and teacher, on the one hand, and being a law school leader, on the other. Being a professor provides a unique opportunity to think and write about issues independently of the interests of a client, and to contribute to the education of future lawyers. I have enjoyed both of these things very much. Leading a law school calls upon so many of the skills of practice — strategy, negotiation, sometimes adversarial negotiation — in addition to a knowledge of legal education that it’s almost as if my two professions have converged.

8babf3d5cc2c3d3a91b2b9296defc197_Screen-Shot-2019-03-13-at-11.46.38-AMAMC: Your work at MoFo included helping to lead the MoFo team representing Fujitsu in its international arbitration with IBM. What was the significance of Fujitsu’s eventual victory?

PM: I’ll mention two aspects of the IBM/Fujitsu arbitration that I believe have had lasting significance and that, I should add, were achieved because of the efforts and ingenuity of both parties, both teams of lawyers, and the arbitrators. The first was the creation of a unique model for the management and resolution of a complex worldwide dispute involving multinational parties, the interests of multiple nations, and no clear applicable law. The IBM/Fujitsu arbitration was so large and complex that we essentially had to devise our own rules of procedure, applicable law and rules of engagement. It was a unique combination of arbitration, mediation and constant negotiation, in which the parties, arbitrators and lawyers happily shared a very forward-looking orientation. The process was far more about finding solutions than it was about imposing blame. The second was the principle of interoperability and the singular importance of clearly defined interfaces to interoperability. This was a major advance for worldwide consumers and producers of high technology.

AMC: Your academic writings are diverse and include a thoughtful piece on China’s impact on the Western legal tradition. Can you share some of your thoughts on this topic?

PM: I’ll share one. I do not believe in the eventual convergence of all law and legal practice around the Western legal tradition. We need to value very highly in a world of cross-border exchange and disputes those mechanisms and institutions, such as international arbitration and the 1958 New York Convention, that preserve the flexibility to respect and accommodate different legal and commercial traditions and expectations, as well as the new traditions and expectations likely to emerge from their interaction. My views about this are informed both by my years of practice representing non-US parties and interests, and by my experience helping to establish one of China’s most innovative and successful programmes of legal education.

AMC: As one of the seers relating to the exponential growth of Shenzhen and the emergence of the Greater Bay Area, how do you see its development comparing to Silicon Valley and the original Greater Bay Area in California?

PM: I’ve been fortunate to be a first-hand witness to the emergence of both areas. China has provided a modern, interconnected infrastructure for the Greater Bay Area — transportation, communications and energy — that, in my view, is likely to ensure the eventual expansion of the innovation and development characteristic of Shenzhen throughout the region. China also is doing an admirable job of experimenting with the best approaches to laws and judicial and regulatory institutions most conducive to sustaining the advanced, innovative, internationalised economy of the region. The one ingredient of technological innovation in which Shenzhen and the Greater Bay Area still lag in comparison to California’s Silicon Valley and other US centres of innovation is higher education. The Greater Bay Area needs more institutions of higher education, and higher education throughout China, in my view, needs more autonomy if it ever hopes to match the creative output of the US.

AMC: Who was your mentor?

PM: In law practice and client service generally, two senior partners of Morrison & Foerster, the late Bob Raven and Jim Paras. I’ve never known finer, more ethical lawyers with a better understanding of the profession.

AMC: What advice would you give to a young lawyer entering the profession?

PM: Be honest. Be ethical. Leave no stone unturned. And, underestimate neither the complexity of the law nor the value of compromise.

AMC: What is your hinterland?

PM: I’ll interpret this literally as asking for my favourite remote area. This is probably the Indian Ocean Coast of the Margaret River region of Western Australia. I have many close “second” favourites all over the world, but the Margaret River region probably tops my list.

我院公益法律诊所团队2019年赴缅甸之行

2019年2月,在北京大学国际法学院法律诊所副教授Nicholas Frayn的组织带领下,公益法律诊所小组赴“一带一路”沿线国家缅甸开展公益法律活动。在为期一周的行程中,小组成员饶逸帆、陈星吾、唐丽香和朱润泽跟随带队老师先后参观了当地公益法律组织、律师事务所以及国际援助缅甸法律事业建设的机构,包括国际法律基金会,仰光大学法治中心,美国国际开发署促进缅甸法治项目,缅甸独立律师协会,仰光司法中心等。同时,他们参与了缅甸东仰光大学的课堂教学,并与该校师生就中缅两国的法律教育经验进行交流和相互学习。

小组成员首先参观了国际法律基金会。国际法律基金会主要培训当地刑辩律师,提供法律援助,进行法治宣传。席间讨论的话题包括挑选援助对象的标准,与当地大学培养法学生的合作,缅甸的律师入职门槛、律师在缅甸社会中的地位和角色、援助过程中应对缅甸司法腐败的方法以及中国的法律援助制度,中国的司法流程和审限限制等。

随后参观了缅甸独立律师协会。该协会由当地公益诉讼律师发起,旨在联合全缅甸律师推进律师权益保护,同时组织公益案件的代理。其负责人主要介绍了近期参与的缅甸罗兴亚难民人权案、缅甸法律援助制度,以及该机构未来的发展规划。小组成员则向对方介绍了中、美法律援助制度的发展与现状。双方还就中缅两国律师群体数量、律所组织形式等进行探讨。

除了参访交流,在东仰光大学,小组师生还分别做了课堂展示。Frayn教授对美国宪法第14修正案进行了介绍,随后两位小组成员以底特律公立学校一案为例,呈现了在美国司法体制下,当学校无法提供有效教育时,代表受害学生的公益律师将可能从基本人权和平等保护角度提出两大诉由。讨论过后,小组又为现场学生做了一场中国公益诉讼的展示,以职业病受害人求偿为例,全方位展示中国公益诉讼律师如何发挥作用并取得成效。

朱润泽同学表示此次缅甸法治之旅是一次在法学院读书期间极为难得的体验,可以较为全面地参访缅甸当地众多法律组织,期间工作人员和律师们展现出的对法治和自由的追求让人印象深刻。唐丽香同学也有相似的感悟,此行一方面收获了缅甸法律制度和公益诉讼方面的知识,另一方面被当地法律工作者的智慧和热血打动,促使自身努力学习,将来为中国公益法律事业的发展添砖加瓦。此外,小组成员们也在缅甸分享了国法的法学教育,以及中美法律制度和司法实践,这种兼备输出和输入的体验难能可贵。

Frayn教授则对同学们表现出的态度和热情有更直观的感受。“他们全身心投入到此次的活动中,与当地法律工作者积极互动,并解答关于中国法律教育和法律制度的相关疑问。同时,他们使用第二语言与非英语母语者讲授中美法制,解释复杂的概念,此番认真负责的态度让我为之骄傲。”

公益法律诊所是院内设立的教学项目之一,参与该项目的学生可与经验丰富的公益诉讼律师沟通,参与案件理论推测和协助事实调查,也会走出去进行实地考察。

我院代表队在国内模拟法庭比赛中表现优异

春回大地,捷报频传。2月23日至24日,由中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会举办的首届“贸仲杯国际投资仲裁赛”在西安举行,凭借出色的表现,北京大学国际法学院代表队在14支高校参赛队伍中脱颖而出,荣获团队一等奖,其中张黄澜同学还荣获最佳辩手,王月影同学荣获优秀辩手。此次代表队由程敬徽、黄铭聿、王月影和张黄澜四位2017级学生组成,由学院讲师周俊池担任指导。他们将继续前往德国参与3月4日举行的第12届法兰克福投资仲裁赛,在国际舞台中与众多高校同台竞技。

获得最佳辩手的张黄澜同学表示准备这场比赛非常具有挑战性,队员们经历了对投资仲裁领域从零到有的学习过程,并且在这一过程中锻炼了自己的法律检索能力、自学能力、表达能力以及团队合作精神。在两天的紧张赛程中,队员们遇到了来自其他高校的优秀队伍,通过一次次的对阵交锋,大家能够相互学习、共同进步;此外,通过聆听在投资仲裁领域资深仲裁员们对队伍的指导,队员们能更清楚地发现自身的不足,也更明晰之后改进的方向。此次比赛不仅为法兰克福投资比赛做了准备,也实践了在国法所学,受益颇多。

2月23日至25日,“中国第十七届杰赛普国际法模拟法庭全国选拔赛”在云南举行。北京大学国际法学院代表队在全国51支队伍的激烈角逐中表现优秀,荣获团队一等奖。该代表队由崔璐婷、林逸夫、屈刚毅、尹文杰四位2017级同学组成,由助理院长Christian Pangilinan担任指导老师。在单项奖评审中,林逸夫同学和屈刚毅同学还荣获中国赛区最佳辩手。

获得最佳辩手的林逸夫同学表示,研一的美国法训练使得国法学生在参赛初期具有一定的优势,跨国法律实务课程极大地锻炼了书面文书的写作能力,Q3时该课程的结课以及院内模拟法庭选拔赛又锻炼了口头辩论的能力。尽管如此,队员们还是会惊叹于杰赛普比赛对法律检索量的要求。杰赛普不仅仅是一场持续两天的比赛,更是一场漫长的旅程,旅途上收获的是队友的并肩作战,教练的谆谆教导和校友们的支持帮助。

北京大学国际法学院历年来积极参与国内外模拟法庭比赛,除了上述两场比赛,还包括WTO模拟法庭大赛、国际刑事模拟法庭大赛、红十字会国际人权法模拟法庭大赛和VIS国际商事仲裁模拟法庭大赛,让学生在备赛过程中得到高强度的法律写作和辩护训练,强化在跨国法律实务课程上所学的辩论技巧。

我院两位校友分别荣登2018年度LEGALBAND中国两榜三十强

2018年11月至12月,LEGALBAND多个榜单陆续发布。北京大学国际法学院赵枫和刘地校友分别荣登《2018年度LEGALBAND中国律界俊杰榜三十强》《2018年度LEGALBAND中国法务俊杰榜三十强》

赵枫校友,2014年毕业于北京大学国际法学院,目前就职于竞天公诚律师事务所,主要职业领域包括调查与合规、争议解决。她的上榜理由是:赵枫律师兼具法律和金融的双重学历背景,其擅长从不同角度的发现并解决问题,在合规、争议解决领域拥有较为丰富的实操经验。赵律师代表性案例包括:为中信证券股份有限公司拟被证监会予以行政处罚案提供证券合规服务;为方正证券股份有限公司应对投资者提起的证券虚假陈述责任纠纷民事诉讼案提供民事诉讼代理服务等。“工作认真负责,其对于民商事法律事务,特别是证券法律事务,都体现出了专业的执业律师水平;是市场上少见的覆盖全合规业务领域的法律人才”。

刘地校友,2015年毕业于北京大学国际法学院,目前就职于虎牙直播,主要从业领域包括电子竞技、游戏直播。他的上榜理由是:刘地深耕于电竞、直播行业的法律事务,作为涉外法务经理,其熟谙国内外不同的商业文化和法律制度,擅长以法律和商业的双视角处理相关的法律业务。其代表案例包括:全球知名DOTA2职业战队(TI7世界冠军)TeamLiquid战队入驻虎牙直播的商务谈判及中英双语合同的起草和审阅工作;全程参与虎牙诉江某(知名王者荣耀主播“嗨氏”)网络服务合同纠纷案(法院判决江某承担违约金4900万元,为主播违约诉讼的历史最高违约金纪录,该案也被各主流媒体争相报道,引起了巨大的社会舆论)。“对网络游戏领域非常熟悉,能很好地实现法律与业务领域的融合。”

LEGALBAND是国际媒体公司Accurate Media旗下的专业法律评级机构,总部位于香港,并在中国大陆拥有驻地调研团队,其每年会发布多类法律评级报告,旨在为企业客户选聘律所及律师提供权威指南。

北京大学国际法学院教学大楼荣获必达亚洲教育建筑设计大奖

2018年4月12日至14日,在上海举行的必达亚洲春季峰会上,北京大学国际法学院教学大楼荣获必达亚洲教育建筑设计大奖。北京大学国际法学院教学大楼由世界顶级建筑设计公司Kohn Pedersen Fox(KPF)主持设计,作为十个获奖单位之一获得此项荣誉。必达亚洲旨在“连接更多的学校、学习空间设计专家、学校设施装备解决方案供应商”,分享各自在学校建设领域的最新洞见,在全球视野下,寻求适合中国的匹配未来教学法的学校建设模式。

北京大学国际法学院大楼建筑面积为8900平方米,于2017年1月正式投入使用,是北京大学深圳研究生院的标志性建筑。大楼南临大沙河,北面校园正门。大楼设有阶梯教室、模拟法庭、法律图书馆、法律诊所、多种规格的研讨室和自习室以及户外天台,为各种大小型活动提供盛大或亲密的交流环境,在促进学院的社区整体感的同时维持个人空间的完整性。

施耐德教授荣获北京大学燕园友谊奖

DSC04974北京大学国际法学院弗朗西斯·施耐德(Francis Snyder)教授在北京大学2019年外国留学生及专家新年联欢会上荣获“北京大学燕园友谊奖”。该奖项的设立,主要对长期在校工作且取得突出成绩的高层次外国专家进行表彰。此次共有不同院系的六位外国专家获得此殊荣。

施耐德教授是食品安全法、WTO法和欧盟法方向的杰出法学家,自2010年任教于北京大学国际法学院以来,坚持教学与学术研究并重,为北京大学“双一流”建设和发展贡献了智慧和力量。此外,施耐德教授也是2018年度中国政府友谊奖获得者。

我院Stephen Minas教授合著气候政策新文章

IMG_2231时值各国政府齐聚一堂为《巴黎协定》制定气候变化上的规则,北京大学国际法学院助理教授Stephen Minas在顶尖气候变化和政策杂志上在发表相关论文,探讨《巴黎协定》管理的关键因素。

“Probing the hidden depths of climate law: Analysing national climate change legislation”一文由RECIEL出版,由伦敦大学学院Eloise Scotford教授和Minas教授合著。文章探讨了国内气候立法对实行《巴黎协定》的复杂性,为气候立法发展提供了方法论指导以支持国内外合作。

“Resilience through interlinkage: the green climate fund and climate finance governance”一文由《气候政策杂志》出版,由伦敦国王学院Megan Bowman博士和Minas教授合著。文章分析了绿色气候基金的管理,以及加强与私营部门和联合国气候科技机制的联系。

在COP24大会期间,以上文章均可免费阅读,无需订阅。

我院获得“全球法律技能教育”荣誉证书

IMG_5174-112月10日,在墨尔本举行的第十三届全球法律技能大会(GLS-13)上,北京大学国际法学院荣获“全球法律技能教育”证书,以表彰我院在“提供让学生更好地适应经济全球化背景下日益显著的普通法系、大陆法系以及中国法律传统交融的中英双语法学教育模式”上的杰出成就。

北京大学国际法学院是国务院和北京大学的一次大胆尝试,试图为中国乃至全球法律教育探索一种全新的教育模式。创立于2008年,北京大学国际法学院是中国也是全世界范围内,唯一将美国法律培养模式(J.D.)和我国传统的法律硕士培养模式(J.M.)相结合培养法律人才的法学院,通过国际化顶尖师资、苏格拉底式教学,致力于培育可在世界范围内与英美顶尖律师竞争的高端法律人才,服务于以科技创新、金融服务和国际化为特征的现代经济发展。

此次大会是法律技能教育具有重要意义的盛会,由墨尔本法学院和约翰马歇尔法学院联合主办,聚集了全球法学教授、语言学家、法官、律师和学者来探讨全球法律技能教育的最佳实践。

我院黄卉教授受邀担任首届中国民航法律知识竞赛专家评委

微信图片_20181211100956-212月4日,由中国民用航空局、中国航空运输协会和中国民用机场协会共同主办的“法治民航·信用民航”法律知识竞赛总决赛在京圆满结束。北京大学国际法学院黄卉教授担任此次比赛的三位专家评委之一,其余两位专家评委为中国政法大学的费安玲教授和中国民航大学的杨惠教授。

本次活动是中国民航庆祝国家改革开放40周年系列活动的重要组成部分,也是民航法治宣传的重要载体,共有来自全国七大赛区的民航行政机关、运输企业、民用机场、服务保障企业、科研院校等多家单位的246支队伍792名选手参赛。

微信图片_20181211100949

我院顺利举行“政治宪法——比较视野对话”圆桌会谈

8M7A049312月2日,“政治宪法——比较视野对话”圆桌会谈在北京大学国际法学院举行。宪法领域的中外著名学者加州大学伯克利法学院院长Erwin Chemerinsky教授和上海交通大学凯原法学院高全喜教授受邀参会,我院师生积极参与其中,和学者们共同探讨宪政发展中值得关心的问题。会议由Philip McConnaughay院长开幕,由满运龙副院长主持。

高全喜教授首先提出此时此地从比较法的角度探讨宪政非常具有意义。高教授是国内宪法学,政治哲学和中国宪政历史学领域的杰出学者,并在上述领域著作颇丰。今年是改革开放四十周年,改革开放是新的宪法动力,而宪法改革主要的动力来自于中国南方,深圳是南方重城。高教授就中国宪法的发展以及对中国目前宪政的状况提出了自己的看法。他指出,中国近代宪法大致有100年的发展时间,大致经历了三个阶段:第一个阶段是晚清立宪到中华民国宪法,第二个阶段是中国民国宪法到中华人民共和国宪法,第三个阶段是中华人民共和国宪法到今天宪法的发展。在这个变迁过程中,值得关注的是从古典社会到现代社会宪法变迁的政治基础和政治动力。高教授随后论述到,宪法的动力是需要通过宪法机制来体现的。在中国,宪法机制有三个层次,分别是修正案的层次,人民代表大会的层次,也就是立法层次,最后一个层次是通过权利清单来保证个人的权利。这三个层次变成了一个宪法结构。随着国际交流日益密切,中国宪法也处于一种古今中西的结构中,面临着一个重要的改革点,今后宪法何去何从还需要进一步的观察和探索。

在高教授发表了对中国百年宪法变迁的看法以后,加州大学伯克利法学院院长Erwin Chemerinsky教授分享了自身对美国宪政的认知。Chemerinsky院长是美国宪法学界知名学者,出版过11本法律著作和200多篇法律文章,曾被美国国家杂志评为全美法学教育最有影响力的人物之一。Chemerinsky院长指出,各个国家的宪法并不能完全照搬照抄,各国的宪法发展有自己适合的土壤。然而宪法有一个共同的特征,就是实施宪法以实现法治,而法治的核心是法律至上。美国宪法制度则通过不同的方式来达到这个目标。首先美国宪法赋予了政府权力而不涉及私人领域。其次,美国宪法一方面想要创设有效的政府,一方面也要限制政府的权力。美国宪法的序言中清楚地展示了有效政府和限制权力之间的张力。他强调了宪法序言的重要性,美国宪法序言表明了想要实现的价值,诸如民主政府,有限政府,公平原则以及保证自由。再次,美国政府在实质和程序上来限制政府权力,比如国会、政府、法院之间的分权制衡,州政府和联邦政府之间权力的配置,权力的列举等方式。美国将实施这些限制的权力给予了法院,同时法院也会缓和宪法发展和限制政府权力之间的压力。

在两位学者分享了自己对于中美宪法的认知后,现场的听众产生诸多感悟,又就中国革命内涵,中国宪政发展的动力,以及美国宪政面对的不稳定性,宪法审查机制,人治和法治等问题和两位学者进行了进一步的交流讨论。会议在脑力激荡和跨国讨论中落下帷幕。

学院通讯

北京大学国际法学院

深圳市南山区西丽大学城
北京大学深圳研究生院国际法学院410
邮编:518055