Editor's Preface


EDITORS' PREFACE

In our Forum on Comparative Legal Education published last fall
(Volume 4 No. 1), Professor Richard Stith argued that one of the
central debates in legal education in this country is practice versus
theory. While American law schools scramble to put clinical and other
"practical" programs on line after years of prodding from members
of the practicing bar, in Continental Europe the law school experience
is one defined by an attempt to unravel jurisprudence and legal theory.

Doubtless many members of the practicing bar also view the
institution of the law review as something largely extraneous and prin-
cipally a vehicle for the argument of academic (used in both of the
two most common denotative senses) concerns. Professor Alan Der-
showitz, however, argued in a speech at this law school last year that
a good trial lawyer must blend practice and theory, using the latter to
accomplish the aims of the former. Still, on the surface, the importance
to the practitioner of a symposium on Italian law such as we have
attempted might be elusive. It is primarily for the purpose of exposing
the fallacy in the previous statement that this symposium has been
undertaken.

That we now live in an increasingly internationally integrated world
is almost too trite to say. American corporations need only look to the
location of their subsidiaries, suppliers, or distributors to prove this.
Business lawyers need only compare the situs of their clients' disputes
and transactions today with ten years ago to know that economic
globalization has occurred. The realization of the European Economic
Community and the promulgation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement are accelerants in this process. Understanding of the forces
of globalization and regionalization, and of the legal and political
structures of industrialized and developing nations is now by necessity
the stuff of a 101 class, not a graduate curriculum.

This symposium is not intended to be a definitive compilation of
scholarly research on the Italian legal system, but a more conversational
addition to the discourse on international law in a comparative per-
spective. On a practical level, the articles and essays are available as
educational tools for those who already do or may yet do business in
Italy. The Response written by David Russell, an American business
lawyer, tells us how Italian and European law has influenced his
practice. We hope then that this focus will be helpful in itself to many.

But more than that, we hope that readers view the relationship
of the entities involved here, Italy and Indiana, as a paradigm for



IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.

further discussion. That is, an American lawyer representing a cor-
poration with manufacturing interests in France is not at liberty to
ignore the situation in Italy with the free movement of goods in Europe
on the immediate horizon. Alternatively, that Russell writes of his
experiences from his Indianapolis, Indiana office-and not from New
York or San Francisco- serves to quell any notion that places like the
American Midwest are exempt from the duty to keep up on world
events. So then, we hope that the model we have chosen for this
symposium-a thematic compilation of essays and articles on a partic-
ular nation's legal and political structure-is repeated in the future
both by this law review and by others.

It should be acknowledged that this particular endeavor could not
have been undertaken without the patronage of the Italian Academy
for Advanced Studies in America at Columbia University through its
principals, Maristella Lorch and Andrea Bartoli. It should also be noted
that the contribution of Charlie Ross, our developer and liaison, was
indispensable to the existence of this symposium. We also thank the
Indiana State Bar Association, International Law Section, not only for
its participation in the form of David Russell, but also for the generous
interim financial support advanced by its Chairman, D. Robert Web-
ster. Thanks also go to Jacqueline Lee for her secretarial support. Last,
but by no means least, we note the time and effort expended by Mike
Kelly and Camilyn Kuhns who took on the bulk of the editing challenge
at the outset, and whose ideas are indelibly imprinted in this work.

Anthony Scott Chinn
Franklin E. Breckenridge, Jr

Indiana University School of Law

Indianapolis, February 1994

[Vol. 4:i