Global Civil Justice

The growing interest of law schools in various International, Transnational, or even Global Law programs underscores the close relationship between research and teaching. This connection holds even when focusing on fields traditionally viewed as domestic and primarily associated with national legal frameworks, such as civil procedure. Civil procedure is one of the most pivotal areas in this regard. One proposal worth considering is to rebrand this field as “International, Transnational, or Global Civil Procedure” or “International Dispute Resolution”, although the latter may not be entirely appropriate. However, changing the course title does not resolve the underlying issues, such as course content and its relevance to students’ education. This essay aims to delve deeper into this matter. First and foremost, it seeks to provide a more accurate interpretation of the usual term “international civil procedure” by appending the words “global civil justice”. It is not merely a matter of terminology but a fundamental and primary objective of what international civil procedure should aim to achieve. This addition enables us to identify the core principles that should guide the litigation rules, transcending the specifics of each country’s legal traditions. Since the goal is not to prepare students exclusively for domestic bar exams, which inherently reflect national patterns, but rather to equip them with the foundational knowledge of civil procedures and the judiciary across various legal systems; teaching activities must be rooted in rigorous research in comparative civil justice. Consequently, a well-considered cross-comparison becomes essential. Above all, it necessitates a deep appreciation of the fundamental domestic rules and general principles. This transformation from “procedure” to “justice” advocates for a novel approach to studying and researching civil procedure as a primary field for social sciences. In essence, the focus should not solely be on the international or transnational aspects of the technical rules but on genuine global justice that identifies differences within a shared foundation of principles and objectives. The outcome of this approach is precise and groundbreaking. It heralds a new era for civil procedure (and justice) among scholars worldwide, with teaching naturally evolving due to this innovative research. Comparing the legal systems of the two families prepares students to navigate various jurisdictions, emphasizing commonalities over differences. Simultaneously, it encourages scholars to establish universal principles in addition to specific rules, aiding domestic policymakers in redefining the vision and scope of civil justice judiciously.