Abstract
A global overview of clinical legal education (CLE) shows that there are ongoing efforts worldwide to promote CLE. The development of university law clinics and CLE in Central Asia, the Middle East, East Asia and South-East Asia indicates concrete attempts to expose law students to legal practice in various ways, often under very challenging circumstances. The guidelines for CLE are, however, not followed uniformly across all the jurisdictions under discussion.
CLE in Afghanistan is currently on hold due to the political climate under the second Taliban regime, despite the presence of Afghan and Sharia law clinicians who were initially at the forefront of Afghanistan’s emerging clinical movement. In Georgia, CLE has evolved significantly since the Soviet era. A focus on the application of substantive law led to the development of law clinics. Some university law clinics – mainly aimed at master’s students – are in-house, whilst others partner with external entities, with students working under the supervision of legal practitioners.
Iran’s first university-based law clinic was established in 2007 after a week-long training workshop in South Africa. Upon their return to Iran, these clinicians presented workshops at several universities, paving the way for the establishment of law clinics in Iran. CLE at the Qatar University College of Law began in 2012 with a family violence clinic focused on legislative reform to criminalise family violence. Their Street Law programmes focus on community education.
Six university law clinics were established in Palestine with assistance from the United Nations. Local support for tribal and customary dispute resolution processes allows students to experience the interface between formal law and customs. However, bureaucratic politics restrict Palestinian clinics from fully developing their programmes.
Modern CLE in Russia emerged as a result of the fundamental changes following the collapse of the Soviet Union. University law clinics tend to avoid matters of serious public interest due to political sensitivity. Issues of race and gender are considered particularly risky, as they are generally viewed as unimportant in the Russian context. Russian law clinics are usually supervised by former students working as volunteers, due to political instability.
In Türkiye, practical legal training falls under the jurisdiction of the bar council and law clinics have not firmly taken root, despite attempts by academia. The attempted coup d’etat in 2016 significantly altered the political climate and affected universities, overturning 50 years of appointment traditions, resulting in the closure of developing clinics in 2018. During 2018–2019, some universities established clinics with limited scope, often without adhering to basic clinical methods.
At the beginning of the 20th century, legal training in Uzbekistan was Islamic in nature. During the Soviet era, it followed Marxist theory and case law. In contemporary Uzbekistan, legal education is a priority and significant reforms have been implemented to align with global standards. Several clinics have since been established at law schools.
Most law schools in Indonesia offer legal aid programmes. However, there is no universal programme and each campus develops legal aid in accordance with their abilities and requirements. Clinical courses are not continuously offered as mandatory components of the curriculum.
CLE was introduced in Japan 20 years ago as an experimental programme. However, early expectations were not met and CLE did not expand as expected.
Several law schools in Singapore have established clinics that include community services and judicial clerkships. One family law clinic offers an accredited clinical course.
CLE has not developed significantly in Taiwan. None of the 28 law faculties offer a compulsory clinical course.
In Thailand, law clinics have played a significant role for several decades in delivering legal services to communities. Although law clinics have gained more official status at Thai universities, the primary focus remains on legal services rather than student education.
CLE is still in its early stages of development in Vietnam, where community legal education – similar to Street Law – is the dominant model.
The Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia established a law clinic in 2000 with the goal of integrating civil and Sharia law.
At the Kathmandu Law School in Nepal, students provide supervised legal aid to prisoners and victims of human rights violations. Two mobile clinics serve Nepalese citizens in need.
The legal academy in Bangladesh has not formally adopted CLE, though certain clinical methods are used outside of the law school context. Within the law school, the focus is on moot courts.
In Bhutan, partnerships with community organisations are the primary mode of CLE. CLE is a compulsory course offered at the three university law clinics.
In India, CLE remains in its fledgling state in most law schools. Many law schools operate student-driven legal aid cells focused on community services, with a specific focus on combatting caste discrimination and promoting women’s rights.
In Pakistan, the bar, which rules legal education, does not require CLE to be mandatory. The handful of university law clinics therefore use moot courts as a form of practical education. No academic credits are earned for participation.
Keywords: clinical legal education; cooperation models; externship; internship; law clinics; live client; mock trials; public legal education; simulation; Street Law programmes
- This article’s featured image was created by cottonbro studio and obtained from Pexels.