Alexander H. E. Morawa

The Globalization of Legal Education in Switzerland: Possibilities and Challenges

The present chapter utilizes primary and secondary sources, statistical and other data from Swiss federal and Kantonal government agencies and universities, as well as information from public organizations, such as the Joint Swiss Rector’s Conference (Gemeinsame Rektorenkonferenz der schweizerischen Hochschulen, swissuniversities), which unifies the structure of joint university governance in light of the 2012 federal Act on the Support and Coordination of Swiss Colleges and Universities (Bundesgesetz uber die Forderung der Hochschulen und die Koordination im schweizerischen Hochschulbereich (Hochschulforderungs- und -koordinationsgesetz, HFKG) of 30 September 2011) and will replace the Swiss University Rectors’ Conference (Rektorenkonferenz der Schweizer Universitaten, CRUS) as well as the parallel conferences of Swiss college rectors and Swiss teacher’s college rectors. In light of the limited published materials on the topic of internationalised legal education in Switzerland, the authors have decided to also incorporate in their findings the results of a small-scale research initiative linked to the present study, which in particular involves written questionnaires and, to a smaller extent, short semi-structured personal or phone interviews. The questionnaire and interviews do not fulfil the strict standards for empirical, quantitative research, and are not intended to have that quality. Instead, the authors wanted to gather first-hand information from relevant actors in Swiss legal academe, law school administration, legal practice, and the judiciary that is distinctly personal, informal, and of anecdotal, or qualitative ‘value’ only.

The European Court of Human Rights and Minority Rights: The 'Special Consideration Standard' in Light of Gypsy Council

On 14 May 2002, the European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), by a majority, declared an application by The Gypsy Council et al. v. the United Kingdom inadmissible. This article reviews that case as one example of recent pronouncements of the Court in matters related to minority rights and, in particular, in light of an emerging, but not yet consequentially applied standard that would require domestic authorities to give ‘some special consideration . . . to [the] needs and . . . different lifestyle’ of members of minority groups when applying general laws. The particularities of the case will be placed in the context of the level of protection of specific minority rights by the European normative system governing human rights and a slowly developing sensitivity to such issues by the Council of Europe’s judicial body. In this context, Gypsy Council must be seen as an unfortunate setback.