Teaching Comparative Law Post-Brexit and Post-SQE: Challenges and Choices for UK Universities

Search in: This Journal Anywhere Advanced search

The Law Teacher Latest Articles Submit an article Journal homepage

Open access

0 Views 0 CrossRef citations to date 0 Altmetric Listen Research Article

Teaching comparative law post-Brexit and post-SQE: challenges and choices for UK universities and teachers of comparative law

Paula Giliker School of Law, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Correspondence paula.giliker@bristol.ac.uk

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1339-8196 Received 11 Oct 2025, Accepted 29 Jan 2026, Published online: 16 Apr 2026

• https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2026.2625576

• 
  CrossMark

• Full Article

• Figures & data

• Citations

• Metrics

• Licensing

• Reprints & Permissions

• View PDF (open in a new window) PDF (open in a new window) View EPUB (open in a new window) EPUB (open in a new window)

ABSTRACT

This article will reflect on the impact of Brexit and of the introduction of the SQE on comparative law teaching in UK universities. Drawing on a 2025 survey by the British Association of Comparative Law (BACL) on how comparative law is currently taught in UK universities, it will examine the place of comparative law in the law school curriculum. In so doing, it will identify changes since the last BACL teaching survey of 2002. Has Brexit, with EU law potentially demoted to an optional part of the law degree curriculum, discouraged interest in studying comparative law? What has been the impact of the introduction of the SQE on law school curricula? Having been given exclusive access to the findings of the 2025 BACL teaching survey, I will examine the challenges and choices universities and comparative law academics face. Is comparative law teaching an interesting but ornamental addition to a crammed curriculum or an important part of the UK university response to globalisation and the internationalisation of legal education?

KEYWORDS:

• Comparative law teaching
• Brexit
• SQE
• internationalisation of legal education

1. Introduction

Comparative law has been taught in UK universities since the nineteenth century. Footnote 1 Kischel in his textbook describes comparative law as “research into foreign legal systems”, but notes that, in the modern context, comparative law teaching should go beyond a simple analysis of the legal situation as revealed by legal texts and take into account the realities of law in action in a country. Footnote 2 Zweigert and Kötz Footnote 3 in their influential textbook highlight the benefits for law students of studying comparative law. It gives students, they argue, a whole new dimension to their studies in which they are able to learn to respect different legal cultures, understand the way in which law is conditioned by socio-economic facts and develop critical standards to better appreciate the law of their own legal system. Such critical appreciation of the law, it is submitted, enriches the student experience and deepens the student’s understanding of law as a discipline. It encourages recognition that the common law of England and Wales is only one of many ways in which a legal system may operate. Nussbaum argues that “a legal education can be illuminated in countless ways through the incorporation of a comparative perspective”. Footnote 4

Entry into the then European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973 undoubtedly encouraged universities to support access to comparative law teaching. The launch of the Erasmus programme in 1987 stimulated the growth of degree programmes which included a period of study abroad in Europe. This required teaching to prepare students for the particular challenges of study in civil law countries, contrasting the common law with the law of European civil law jurisdictions. EU law became compulsory in a qualifying law degree (QLD) in the 1990s, Footnote 5 thus introducing students to a new legal system bearing many of the characteristics of civil law jurisdictions. At the same time, increased recruitment of international staff for teaching and research purposes in law schools gave universities access to talented staff capable of engaging with jurisdictional comparisons.

However, this picture has now changed. This article will reflect on the impact of two significant recent events on comparative law teaching in UK universities: Brexit (2020) and the introduction of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) (2021). Both have led to curricula change and a rethink of our relationship with Europe and of the purposes and content of law degrees. Footnote 6 In this new environment, what is the place of comparative law in law school curricula? Will it fall off the curriculum or become an occasional option appearing at the whim of available staff and student interest?

My analysis will be assisted by data from a recent survey by the British Association of Comparative Law (BACL) on how comparative law is currently taught in UK universities. To celebrate its 75th anniversary, BACL undertook a survey of comparative law teaching in UK universities and its findings will be used in this article to provide a snapshot of the state of comparative law teaching across the UK in 2025. This survey will be contrasted with an earlier 2002 survey conducted by Esin Örücü to identify how changes in higher education have affected the availability of comparative law modules across the sector. Footnote 7 To what extent do law schools continue to manifest a commitment to comparative law teaching? Do we see differences across the UK if we compare, for example, the mixed law jurisdiction of Scotland with the common law jurisdictions of England and Wales and Northern Ireland?

The debate obviously has echoes in the EU law teaching debate, discussed in great depth in this journal, Footnote 8 but the reason for focusing on comparative law is that this is a subject whose raison d’être is to force students and academics alike to engage with the laws and cultures of other jurisdictions beyond UK law. A decline in comparative law teaching runs the risk that our students will have fewer opportunities to engage with external legal systems, promoting a more insular outlook towards the law. Given Brexit and the introduction of the SQE, what, then, is the future for comparative law teaching in the UK?

2. Comparative law teaching pre-Brexit

2.1. Pre-EEC/EU membership

In a masterly chapter in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, John Cairns traces the development of comparative law teaching and scholarship in the UK in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Footnote 9 What we see is a slow start. Roman law was taught and indeed would remain part of university curricula until the late 1960s in England and Wales/Northern Ireland when a decision was made to drop Roman law as a requirement for admission to the English (but not Scottish) Bar. Footnote 10 Research was undertaken into the relationship between Roman and English law Footnote 11 and there was interest from those involved in the British Empire in Romano-Dutch, Hindu, and what we would now call Islamic law (India being of particular significance). Footnote 12 In the first half of the twentieth century, following the famous Paris International Congress of Comparative Law in 1900, Footnote 13 the value of comparative law as a discipline came to be debated, with advocates stressing its practical importance in developing private international law and for trade. Footnote 14 Yet in 1918, there were only two chairs in any way designated for comparative law or jurisprudence. RW Lee, speaking as President of the Society of Public Teachers of Law in 1936, expressed the view that what “we are doing … for comparative studies in this country [in contrast with] foreign countries is positively shocking”. Footnote 15 Harold Gutteridge in 1941 bemoaned the absence of a clear place for the teaching of comparative law method in the study of the law. Footnote 16

Post-World War II, benefiting from the arrival of refugees from Nazi Germany such as Kurt Lipstein, Martin Wolff and Otto Kahn-Freund in the 1930s, Footnote 17 we see an increased interest in teaching common and civil law comparisons, this time including a modern civil law perspective – although civil law here meant French law. Footnote 18 Research interest may be evidenced by publications such as Harry Lawson’s classic, A Common Lawyer Looks at the Civil Law Footnote 19 in 1955, and CJ Hamson’s, more niche, Executive Discretion and Judicial Control: An Aspect of the French Conseil d’Etat in 1954. Footnote 20 Markesinis notes, however, continued reference to Roman law blended with modern material at this stage. Footnote 21 This ended, however, in the late 1960s in England and Wales/Northern Ireland at least, with Garner in 1971 regarding Roman law teaching as a “dead letter”. Footnote 22 In contrast, Kahn-Freund highlighted as early as 1965 in his inaugural lecture the potential usefulness of comparative law in gaining a clearer understanding of European law should the UK join the EEC. Footnote 23

2.2. Post-EEC/EU membership

It is perhaps inevitable that joining the EEC (later European Union (EU)) in 1973 made staff and students more receptive to comparative approaches to law in that membership of the EU exposed them to a non-common law legal system. Significantly, the launch of the Erasmus programme in 1987 facilitated study abroad in Europe and gave undergraduate law students (and indeed staff) the opportunity, funded by the EU, to spend time in other European countries, which were primarily civil law. Footnote 24 The UK was involved in this programme from its inception, along with 10 other countries. We also see in the years that followed an increase in international staff recruitment. While there were a number of reasons for this, Footnote 25 European integration was undoubtedly one key reason, as was the practical need to assist in the teaching of EU law which became a compulsory part of the law degree in the 1990s. By 2019, some 18% of all academic staff in the UK were citizens of EU member states and more than 26% of the academic staff employed only for research were EU citizens. Footnote 26

EU membership thus became an important impetus in encouraging common and civil law comparisons, be it indirectly, with the compulsory teaching of EU law and the integration into existing modules of civil law principles such as proportionality and good faith, or directly with courses preparing students for Erasmus study in civil law jurisdictions through undergraduate degrees with a study abroad element. The work of the European Commission on harmonisation projects such as the Common European Sales Law, Footnote 27 for example, triggered a wide debate among contract and commercial lawyers about the merits of “civilian” approaches and even the prospect of codification. Further, the presence of Erasmus students in comparative (and other) law classes enriched the teaching and understanding of civil law legal systems. As Blanc-Jouvan noted, comparative law becomes more important as student mobility increases: “when international exchanges are increasing rapidly, everyone knows the risks resulting from an ignorance or misunderstanding of foreign laws”. Footnote 28

In terms of teaching comparative law, 1977 brought Tony Weir’s translation of Zweigert and Kötz’s An Introduction to Comparative Law [Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts ] Footnote 29 to an English-speaking audience. This provided not only a textbook for teaching but an insight into comparative law methodology from a civil law perspective. Scholars such as Basil Markesinis introduced materials in English on German law. Footnote 30 Bernard Rudden described such work as a “goldmine” for comparative law scholars and teachers including both a doctrinal overview written for an Anglo-American audience and translated cases and commentary. Footnote 31 In Scotland, we also see increased recognition of the importance of its status as a mixed legal jurisdiction reflected in its teaching (TB Smith describing Scotland as “one of the uncodified ‘mixed systems’ that managed to survive despite pressures for assimilation to English law which have no real counterpart elsewhere”). Footnote 32 While the picture remains primarily one of comparison in a Western context, with limited discussion of the Global South, what we do see is increased international engagement in law degrees, combined with texts facilitating comparative law teaching.

2.3. Comparative law in the law school syllabus: life outside the core

Nevertheless, despite these developments, Markesinis in 1990 described comparative law teaching as “still searching for an audience even where it has found a place of sorts in the university curriculum”. Footnote 33 Peter Birks was more explicit:

… we are still leaving comparative … law in a ghetto, in the sense that some scholars do comparative research and then the same scholars run comparative law courses which are taken by some students. We are as yet far from making it a matter of course to look at the private law of other systems. The periodical literature shows that most of our research never looks to any continental jurisdiction. So far as it is possible for an observer to see what is going on, most of our teaching appears to assume that only English law counts. Footnote 34

Örücü’s 2002 BACL survey of comparative law teaching supports such concerns. Footnote 35 Forty UK law schools responded to the questionnaire, of which 47% of institutions reported that they taught comparative law, offering modules called “comparative law” and/or modules that would qualify as teaching comparative law or teaching law comparatively. Örücü found no standard comparative law syllabus or textbook. Most modules focused on key systems of the EU or the more prominent systems of the Commonwealth. Örücü noted, however, a distinction between Scotland, where traditionally comparative law had been thought of in connection with jurisprudence and legal history, Footnote 36 and England, Wales and Northern Ireland where it takes on a more practical character. Despite the positive results of her survey, Örücü still found that the majority of academics favoured national-centred teaching of law, with reference to international or “foreign” law only “as appropriate”. Footnote 37

One of the most interesting aspects of Örücü’s survey is her observation of a growing sense that EU membership and globalisation were challenging traditional parochialism. Örücü regarded this factor as key to encouraging an interest in the study of comparative law.

Nevertheless Örücü expressed her fear that comparative law teaching remained on the periphery of the LLB degree. Most academics seemed to regard it as “an interesting but ornamental addition to a crammed curriculum”. Footnote 38 One reason for this was, in her view, the importance universities placed on providing a “qualifying law degree” (QLD). Prior to 2021, to obtain a QLD to qualify as a solicitor or barrister in England and Wales, students were required to cover as a minimum the Foundations of Legal Knowledge in their LLB. Footnote 39 This included EU law, but not comparative law. Footnote 40 It is perhaps inevitable that students would regard modules described as “core” as more important. Such modules also take up valuable space in a three-year degree, reducing the number of optional modules available to students. Footnote 41

The introduction of tuition fees since 1998 must also be taken into account. This led the UK government to emphasise the importance of graduates gaining “employability skills” in order to be fully equipped in meeting the challenges of an increasingly flexible labour market. Footnote 42 Tight argues that the increased emphasis on employability initiatives stresses the vocational purposes of higher education, viewing it as little more than final preparation for a lifetime of productive work. Footnote 43 In the context of a law degree, this puts pressure on students to choose “employer-friendly” optional modules such as commercial or corporate law, banking and finance, intellectual property, etc. Guth and Hervey argue that this can be seen in law school marketing that seeks to connect legal education with the domestic profession, adopting a strongly instrumental rationale for law degrees. Footnote 44 Roper, Dunn and Sixsmith’s survey of law school webpages in England and Wales identifies an incremental shift towards vocationalism for both pre- and post-1992 institutions. Footnote 45

In this light, why would a would-be lawyer choose an option with no obvious vocational relevance such as comparative law? Without student demand, it is difficult to justify the place of comparative law on the curriculum. As long as law degrees are perceived as “vocational”, Örücü argues, the benefits of placing legal studies in the broader context of social science will be overlooked. Footnote 46 Garner’s words continue to haunt us:

… as we cannot teach more than some of our English law in the normal three years vouchsafed to us, why should we appear to waste some of those three years by giving an introduction to some other legal system? Footnote 47

Nevertheless comparative law teaching survived, as the BACL 2002 survey shows, buoyed by degrees with study abroad elements supported by Erasmus and by an increase in international staff keen to undertake comparative law teaching and research. Law students were now familiar with EU law and starting to appreciate that a knowledge of external legal systems might make them more employable. (Örücü in her survey regarded this factor as key to encouraging an interest in comparative law study.) Scottish universities, teaching a mixed legal system, had also long been introducing their students to the tensions between common and civil law, keeping a wary eye on their English neighbour. Footnote 48 During this period, access to online legal sources across the world reduced the cost of running such modules and the obstacle of asking universities to invest in access to “foreign” law. By the time I started teaching comparative law in 2002, in addition to Zweigert and Kötz (still then popular as a core text in its 1998 3rd edition), there were a number of student-friendly competitively priced English textbooks which promoted comparative law teaching. Footnote 49 To this may be added more challenging texts which sought to push comparative law teaching to include methodology and engage with the global context. Footnote 50

Another important and positive influence during this period was the impact of globalisation and the internationalisation of university legal education, Footnote 51 including a significant increase in the recruitment of international students. Globalisation, and with it the growth of regional and global law-making agencies and dispute resolution bodies, required changes in legal education, beyond the addition of a compulsory EU law module. Footnote 52 Waxman argued in 2001 that the inexorable shift to transnational and global legal practice meant that traditional comparative law teaching that focused on the differences between common and civil law jurisdictions, often confined to Anglo-French or Anglo-German comparisons, would have to give way to the demands of an increasingly diverse student body who wished to expand their legal horizons during the law degree. Footnote 53 As students become more exposed to transnational law, argues Husa, notably that of the European Union and European Court of Human Rights, national and international spheres will overlap. Footnote 54

3. Comparative law teaching post-Brexit and post-SQE

What has been the impact, then, of changes post-2020? The decision of the UK to leave the EU has had an effect on those teaching comparative law in UK universities, both practically and emotionally. The teaching of comparative law had benefited from the attractiveness of UK universities to EU academics able to teach common/civil law comparisons and from the incentive for students to engage with law degrees with a study abroad element due to the possibility of obtaining a grant to study abroad under the Erasmus+ scheme. Yet Brexit is not the sole change that UK universities have faced. The introduction of the SQE from 2021, Footnote 55 combined with visa changes making it more difficult to recruit international students and the financial challenges facing many universities in the sector, have all led universities to review how to provide law degrees that are most likely to attract applicants. Footnote 56 Nicholson argues that the marketisation and commoditisation of higher education, combined with the introduction of the SQE and a focus on employability and student satisfaction, has led to law degrees being increasingly evaluated in economic terms. Footnote 57

In examining the current state of comparative law teaching, assistance will be drawn from the 2025 BACL survey of comparative law teaching in the UK. Half a decade after Brexit and with the introduction of the SQE, what place does comparative law have in undergraduate and postgraduate teaching? Are UK universities still committed to the teaching of comparative law and, if so, in what form?

3.1. Brexit and the SQE: a hostile environment for comparative law teaching?

For comparative lawyers whose work involves promoting common and civil law comparison and fostering a better understanding of other European legal systems, Brexit inevitably seems a regressive step. The most obvious blow has been the loss of membership of the Erasmus+ regime. Footnote 58 Erasmus exchanges motivated students to learn about different legal systems, improve their language skills, and work with visiting students to develop comparative perspectives on the law. Studying abroad has also been shown to provide economic benefits for students. A 2025 UUKI report found that students from less advantaged backgrounds who had studied abroad had a higher five-year average professional-level employment rate (70.2%) than those who did not (68.3%). Footnote 59 While study abroad placements continue post-Brexit, incoming and outgoing European exchange students are subject now to visa requirements. Universities have found the replacement for Erasmus (the Turing Scheme) problematic not only in terms of restricted funding (excluding entirely staff exchanges), but in terms of process. By inviting universities to bid annually, outgoing students at the start of their degree have no guarantee of funding for the year abroad and indeed only discover whether Turing funding is available in the July before the September of their placement. Footnote 60

It is also worth noting the distinct philosophy of the Turing Scheme. Brooks and Waters Footnote 61 identify that the ideological basis for the new Scheme is underpinned by distinct socio-economic and geo-political objectives: to promote Global Britain through forging new relationships across the world; to support social mobility and widen participation across the UK; to develop key skills, bridging the gap between education and work; and to ensure value for UK taxpayers in international student mobility. We can speculate to what extent these objectives are mutually consistent. While the focus on widening participation does seem to have been successful and, indeed, is welcomed, there is an emphasis on short-term placements (better value for money). Brooks and Waters question whether shorter exposure to different legal systems will be sufficient to develop the skills central to the Turing Scheme’s objectives. Can, in other words, a deeper understanding of other cultures be achieved in a short period of time? The answer, I would suggest, is generally no.

The UK government in 2025 reached a deal (at considerable cost) Footnote 62 to re-enter Erasmus for 2027–2028. Footnote 63 However, it stated that any participation in Erasmus+ into the next Multiannual Financial Framework would need to be agreed and would be conditional on negotiating a fair and balanced financial contribution. Footnote 64 Given well-publicised governmental budgetary concerns, this gives rise to considerable uncertainty as to the future of Erasmus funding and indeed the fate of the Turing Scheme.

Brexit has also provoked a discussion about whether EU law should continue to be part of the core law degree. Post-Brexit, EU law is no longer binding in the UK. Footnote 65 The Bar in England and Wales is examining whether it will require prior study of EU law. The new Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) (which replaces the QLD in England and Wales) requires simply that students pass a module entitled “Constitutional and Administrative Law and EU Law”. This requires a rudimentary knowledge of retained (or assimilated) EU law which could be taught as part of a constitutional law class. Many universities are considering replacing EU law modules by absorbing them into constitutional/public law teaching and/or creating an external trade law module. While academics have argued persuasively of the value of EU law teaching, Footnote 66 there is a danger of EU law falling to the periphery of the syllabus. If it does so, future law graduates will no longer necessarily be exposed to transnational law as part of their degree nor have any experience of studying a legal system with strong civil law influences, further diminishing their exposure to what might be described as a form of comparative law. Footnote 67

More positively, however, the introduction of the SQE removes the requirement that would-be solicitors must study all the former QLD subjects. This, in turn, might facilitate the study of a greater number of optional modules. Giles and Ang, Footnote 68 in their recent survey of elective modules, note, for example, that universities are now offering, as a hallmark of value, a variety of new modules. Could, then, the SQE be liberating for universities, freeing universities to some extent from the constraints of professional control? Footnote 69 The answer, as Giles and Ang point out, is likely to be in the negative. They find that core QLD subjects continue to play a dominant role in curricula, with only a small number of institutions making QLD subjects elective. Footnote 70 Indeed, if universities profess to offer their students some form of preparation for the SQE, while training students for the Bar (that still requires a QLD), then the incentive is to keep the core subjects at the heart of the traditional three-year degree. Footnote 71

For those universities that adopt a more vocational approach and focus more closely on preparing their students for the SQE, this has further implications. Guth and Hervey predict a two-tier university system in which only the elite will engage in an internationalised legal education in which subjects like comparative law can thrive:

While “elite” UK law schools are likely to continue to provide an internationalised legal education, including both whole programmes in EU law, and at least some optional modules on other programmes, this will not be the case across the board. More professionally focused law schools, especially those which self-identify as serving local communities, or whose graduates de facto are not “global lawyers”, are likely to see a shrinking of awareness of international perspectives, as the focus on the “domestic law of legal practice” tightens. Footnote 72

This suggests that comparative law will remain at the periphery of the law degree and, indeed, may be at risk in professionally focused law schools. If we add to this an environment where students are not required to study a foreign language up to the age of 16 with the number of students studying modern languages to the age of 16 halved since 2002, Footnote 73 this does not bode well for the future. What is the position, then, of comparative law teaching half a decade after Brexit? Is the teaching of comparative law a “luxury” reserved to elite universities?

3.2. The BACL survey into comparative law teaching 2024–2025

In autumn 2024, BACL contacted its Council representatives in 43 universities across the UK with a survey into comparative law teaching. Thirty-nine responded. A deliberate attempt was made to ensure data was received from a range of universities which included both pre- and post-1992 universities, and universities from the Scots and common law legal traditions. (See Annex 1 for the list of respondents.) Responses were further cross-checked against public website information. The respondents were legal academics with a research interest in comparative law and therefore capable of identifying the nature of comparative law teaching (if present) in each institution. The questionnaire consisted of four questions with opportunities to elaborate with free text comments.

I was permitted exclusive access to the data from the survey in order to present the survey results at the BACL 75th anniversary conference in July 2025. Below I will outline the responses to the questionnaire, drawing, in particular, on free text comments to draw wider conclusions as to the state of UK comparative law teaching in 2025.

3.2.1. The survey responses

Question 1. Do you teach comparative law? How do you interpret “comparative law” in your institution?

Only four institutions (Aston, Lincoln, Middlesex, Oxford Brookes) indicated that comparative law was not actively taught in some form in their institution. The italicised words are, however, important in that this does not necessarily mean that the other universities teach distinct comparative law modules, but simply means that comparative law is integrated in some way into undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) curricula.

Free text responses Footnote 74 were sought to the question how to interpret “comparative law”. The most common answers were as follows:

• Comparing the similarities and differences of different legal systems: 78%
• It is used widely, with the term “comparative” being used without necessarily having reference to any comparative methodology: 19%
• No single institutional interpretation and variation between staff: 28%
• Reference in answer to methodology: 22% A clear majority (78%) opted for the conventional response, Footnote 75 with emphasis on micro-comparison with reference to private and public law. This was to be expected given that this is the traditional description of comparative law. However, this did not prevent respondents from expressing some concern about the imprecision of the term and what labelling a module “comparative” actually signified in terms of content. Did it, for example, include more theoretical content or do many courses carry the label comparative without “necessarily having any comparative methodology included” (Oxford)? Indeed, only a fifth of respondents mentioned methodology in their answer to this question. One respondent (Manchester) commented caustically that “most colleagues would see comparative law as the odd reference to other jurisdictions”. Reference to non-EU/non-US jurisdictions or transnational law in this answer was confined to four respondents (Essex, Kent, LSE, QUB). This suggested the need for a more detailed examination of the content of modules using the term “comparative” in their title (see question 4 below).

Question 2. Does comparative law feature exclusively within a research (eg dissertation or research projects) rather than a teaching context at your institution?

• No (research and teaching): 81%
• Yes (research only): 19% A vast majority here (81%) regarded comparative law as featuring in terms of both research and teaching. There was consensus, however, that there was a clear need for students wishing to undertake dissertations at UG or PG level to have some training in comparative approaches even where the subject was not generally taught. For those answering “yes”, many commented that research skills training was their only opportunity to use their comparative law expertise (Manchester, Derby, Liverpool John Moores, Reading). Given that most universities will at UG or PG level give students the opportunity to undertake coursework or dissertations which may have a comparative element, there was thus strong support for integrating comparative law methodology into any preparatory lectures or training.

In terms of teaching, respondents highlighted that a number of institutions have comparative law UG modules directed at those studying abroad. Footnote 76 Yet even those institutions without dedicated modules may utilise comparative approaches in both UG and PG teaching. The reasons are both academic and pragmatic. Given that many universities are seeking to attract international students, the Glasgow respondent noted that, in his institution, module titles including the words “international”, “commercial” or “comparative” are viewed as most likely to appeal to these students. This seems to be particularly apparent at LLM level. The LSE respondent argued that the classroom experience is enhanced by “having students from a wide range of jurisdictions & backgrounds in the room. This facilitates class discussion … [T]his is usually the case, certainly on the LLM”.

Question 3. If you teach comparative law, is it offered only as a dedicated UG or PGT [postgraduate taught] module at your institution?

• Yes (only dedicated UG/PGT module): 10.5%
• No (offered more broadly in UG and PGT contexts): 71%
• No (not offered at all): 18.5% The low percentage of institutions that only (note the restriction) provide dedicated UG or PGT modules (10.5%) Footnote 77 highlights that the majority of institutions (71%) consider comparative law teaching more broadly. Birks’ 1998 comment about the ghettoisation of comparative law is no longer so apparent in 2026. Footnote 78 It does indicate, however, that dedicated comparative law modules exist only in a minority of institutions (10.5%). Footnote 79

More positively, the majority of institutions surveyed have UG and PGT modules with comparative elements in their syllabi. This suggests that, in the modern university context, the question about comparative law teaching should address not solely whether the institution provides a stand-alone comparative law module, but to what extent teaching involves comparative elements. The latter may mean teaching comparative approaches to topics as diverse as private law, constitutional law, human rights or family law. For the 18.5% of respondents who do not have the opportunity to teach comparatively, given that they were BACL representatives with a research interest in comparative law, this does demonstrate an untapped source of comparative teaching, although many were able to supervise comparative research projects at these institutions.

Question 4. If the answer to question 3 is yes or if comparative law is offered more broadly in UG and PGT contexts, please tell us more about how comparative law is offered at your institution.

This part of the survey sought qualitative information about how comparative law was taught. Given that, as seen above, traditional comparative law modules are not the norm and respondents have reported academic and pragmatic support for modules with a comparative law element, the responses (in free text) provide valuable context to the survey findings. My analysis identified four key elements that were raised in the answers.

• Offered at UG level: 68%
• Offered at PG level: 62%
• Teaching includes methodology (including dissertation training): 53%
• Uses materials beyond Western legal systems: 47% A key finding of the survey is the number of modules at UG and PGT level where comparative law forms part of the syllabus dedicated to a specific area of law, eg constitutional law, corporate law, family law, evidence, international economic law, legal history, or international and comparative human rights law. Footnote 80 Certain respondents expressed concern, however, over the extent to which these latter modules integrate methodology into the teaching or rely simply on “foreign” examples to discuss the topic in question. York, for example, expressly has the aim of integrating comparative law into other elements of the UG curriculum instead of offering a dedicated module. The York respondent (a highly respected comparative law theorist) expressed disquiet, however, that this approach left no place for the theories of comparative law. Implicit in the responses was an underlying concern: should we celebrate the willingness of law schools to include comparative approaches to different areas of law in the syllabus or does it represent a watering down or simplification of the discipline of comparative law to respond to the needs of an increasingly international student cohort?

More positively, respondents identified recognition of the utility of using comparative methodology lectures to assist with dissertation training (the high figure of 53% is largely due to this fact). A number of respondents noted that a substantial proportion of PG students describe their research projects as comparative in one way or another. The Durham respondent remarked: “Comparative law features mostly in research, including among PGRs”. This supports the findings under question 2 above.

A healthy 47% of respondents reported using sources beyond Western legal systems. This is boosted by the use of comparative law teaching to support UG degrees with a study abroad element beyond Europe, Scots interest in other mixed legal systems, and with a number of institutions now providing joint LLBs with Global or International law. Such findings do suggest that internationalisation, in particular teaching non-European students, has had a positive impact in broadening the content of the curriculum beyond the traditional focus on Europe and North America noted above.

This picture differs considerably from that of 2002. A number of reasons can be identified for this. Prior to 2015, UK university recruitment numbers were capped. From 2015, many universities have sought to take advantage of the overseas student market. In 2023/2024 there were 732,285 overseas students studying at UK higher education providers or 23% of the total student population. Of these students 75,490 were from the EU and 656,795 from outside the EU. Footnote 81 Brexit may, therefore, have discouraged EU students from applying due to visa requirements and an increase in student fees, but universities in 2026 remain keen to continue to tap the international student market. Mathias Siems argues that, despite Brexit, the UK will also remain an attractive destination for international academics who are drawn by its career opportunities, openness to overseas job applicants and the English-language medium of teaching. Footnote 82 The benefits of staying within the UK university system that Siems identifies in his article and, as one might expect, the disruption of moving to another country appear to have trumped initial concerns of the negative impact of Brexit on staff diversity. Footnote 83 These academics are likely to include comparative elements in their teaching where this is possible. Footnote 84

3.2.2. Looking forward

The BACL survey highlights the changing nature of law school curricula and that Brexit is only one factor affecting what is taught in UK law schools. In particular, it emphasises that internationalisation of legal education has had an impact on what elective modules are offered in law schools and that adding “comparative” to a module description may be regarded as a positive in that it provides a means to attract international students. More fundamentally, survey respondents have highlighted that international students will often desire to undertake comparative dissertations at UG and PG level (LLM and PhD) and that training is needed to avoid juxtaposition rather than comparison (Aberdeen). In other words, the desire to refer to other legal systems needs to be matched by teaching/training that enables students to do this properly. Internationalisation of teaching staff has also presented universities with the opportunity to benefit from staff capable of teaching comparative approaches in different areas of law, thereby enriching the syllabus and choice of modules available for students. The extent to which these modules engage with comparative law methodology and theory remains, however, open to question. Further, not all staff desirous of teaching comparative law are able to do so.

This presents a very different picture from the traditional depiction of comparative law teaching outlined at the start of this article, namely a professor in a classroom explaining to common law students how to engage with French or German law. This is no longer the norm except in the most traditional universities. The survey also highlights the danger of seeking a “UK” approach to comparative law teaching given that Scots universities evidence a conscious desire for their students to appreciate that Scots law is a mixed legal system distinct from that of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and that comparisons with other mixed legal systems such as those of South Africa or Louisiana may be more apposite in certain cases. Footnote 85 Scottish and Northern Irish respondents also argue that the teaching of law in Scotland and indeed Northern Ireland is inherently comparative as tutors must distinguish domestic law from that of England and Wales. In particular, Scottish respondents highlighted a number of degree programmes that specifically address the common law/Scots law divide. Footnote 86

The survey indicates, in sum, that comparative law teaching is alive and well despite Brexit and the SQE but that its content is evolving to respond to the current state of the university sector.

4. Conclusions

This article has addressed the challenges that Brexit and the introduction of the SQE have raised for comparative law teaching. The SQE has led some universities to place even greater emphasis on curricula with a vocational focus which prioritises optional modules directed at employability and legal skills rather than modules such as comparative law. Footnote 87 Brexit has made study abroad in EU jurisdictions more difficult and, as Siems reveals, made international staff at the very least rethink their future in the UK university sector. This article has thus identified a combination of challenges for comparative law teaching: the status of comparative law as an elective module on the peripheries of the law degree (not assisted by the introduction of the SQE), reduced exposure of students to “foreign” legal systems through the potential loss of EU law as a core module, funding obstacles to study abroad, and the impact of “employability” as a factor now imbedded in how universities and students view the law degree. It has also noted the changing nature of the student population due to the internationalisation of legal education. By looking at the BACL surveys of 2002 and 2025, we see a very different environment in the 2020s from that of the turn of the century. Comparative law teaching has responded but we do see that, in so doing, it has diluted its status as a distinct elective module. We might also question to what extent the broad offer of comparative law teaching ensures that students possess an understanding of comparative law methodology and theory.

In this light, are there any steps we can take to encourage comparative law teaching in UK universities? By this, I mean comparative law teaching that gives students the advantages I mentioned in the introduction to this article: a deeper understanding of law (including one’s own legal system), respect for, and engagement with, other legal cultures, an appreciation of how law is conditioned by socio-economic facts and enhanced critical thinking. A good starting point is the observation of Fiona Cownie that:

… legal education is deeply embedded, not only in the legal culture of the legal system of the jurisdiction in which it sits, but within the educational culture of that jurisdiction as well. Footnote 88

If we address UK educational culture, three key features stand out: (i) internationalisation linked to globalisation; (ii) the importance placed on employability and the vocational nature of law degrees; and, finally (iii) the economic dependency of many UK universities on the recruitment of international students. Footnote 89 This means that, despite Brexit, it is in the interests of UK universities to maintain ties with the rest of the world. In the words of Guth and Hervey:

Law schools as economic actors therefore seek to situate themselves, and their students, within, rather than apart from, the rest of the world: in the sense of both the local and the global communities that their graduates will serve. Footnote 90

This presents, I would argue, an opportunity for comparative law teaching. Given the current marketised state of the UK university sector, we need to blend pragmatism with principle to ensure the ongoing health of comparative law teaching. This means seeing international student recruitment as an opportunity to promote comparative perspectives in the curriculum and as a means to train lawyers capable of engaging with different legal systems. This presents teachers with an opening: to go beyond traditional Eurocentric common/civil law comparisons and to embrace a broader range of legal systems including those of the Global South and transnational law. Footnote 91 This should no longer be delegated to specialist universities such as the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). A number of initiatives demonstrate support for this step, eg the establishment of a Centre for Chinese Law and Policy (CCLP) in Durham, Footnote 92 and a Chinese Law Discussion Group and a Programme in Asian Laws at Oxford. Footnote 93 Both institutions have appointed prestigious Chinese and South-East Asian professors to support these initiatives. We also see the introduction of global institutes such as the UCL Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism, Footnote 94 Edinburgh’s Centre for International and Global Law, and Aberdeen’s world-renowned interdisciplinary Centre for Energy Law. The specific context of Northern Ireland has given rise to a Transitional Justice Institute (Ulster) and the Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice (Queen’s University Belfast). We also see centres which specifically focus on the problems of non-traditional jurisdictions such as Queen Mary University of London’s Centre for Small States that focuses on states with a population of 1.5 m or less. Such examples demonstrate the willingness of UK universities to diversify beyond the traditional comparative law “partners” relied upon in the past and engage globally with divergent legal systems.

Catherine Valcke also highlights the distinct instrumental benefits for students of studying legal systems beyond Europe:

The end remains that of getting students to think like domestic lawyers. Only we now believe that this will be better achieved through a global outlook. But global law teaching can be more than that … [I]ts object should be to produce practitioners able to deal, transact, negotiate, and legislate with their foreign counterparts, which skills are in greater demand as the market for legal services is itself being further globalized. Footnote 95

It is vital, however, that, in so doing, the integrity of comparative law teaching is not compromised. This concern was flagged in the BACL survey above. Teaching a “comparative” module that simply juxtaposes the law of several countries with that of English or Scots law, or which permits students to undertake “comparative” dissertations that simply describe the law in five or six random countries, it is submitted, will not achieve the goals of comparative law teaching. If comparative law is to retain its value as a discipline, it is imperative to fight against token comparative additions to syllabi that are directly simply at attracting international students. Or, in the words of the Manchester BACL respondent, modules that seek to tick the comparative box with “the odd reference to other jurisdictions”.

Valcke argues that encouraging students to think like global lawyers must include challenging their intellectual horizons and honing their critical skills. For Paulina Wilson, a global lawyer must be capable of perceiving nuances in how different legal systems construe fundamental concepts on the basis of which their domestic legal rules operate and be able, at least to a certain extent, to understand their languages and cultures. Footnote 96

Comparative law academics need, therefore, to insist that students undertaking such modules and/or comparative dissertations are equipped with, at the very least, a basic understanding of comparative law methodology and the potential difficulties associated with legal transplants. As the BACL survey has shown, there are academics capable of doing so and the ongoing recruitment of international staff, noted by Siems, will continue to facilitate this. Comparative law academics need, therefore, to identify a de minimis core of comparative law teaching if it is not to play a token role in this new environment.

It is crucial, then, to ensure that the value of comparative law teaching is not solely addressed in instrumental terms. Comparative law, as the BACL survey suggests, is still present in the curricula of many universities despite Brexit and the SQE. It is important, however, not to be complacent. The BACL survey has shown concern among comparative law scholars about the existence of teaching which makes only superficial references to comparison without any theoretical basis. The challenge, therefore, for UK comparative law teachers is to respond positively to the changing nature of higher education in the UK and to do so in a way that enriches the discipline and our students’ understanding of the law.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on the author’s keynote speech at the 2025 BACL 75th anniversary conference. The author is extremely grateful to the BACL Executive for exclusive access to the data gathered by the BACL survey and to those who responded to the survey. Special thanks go to Dr Sophie Turenne and Dr Mary Guy. The author would also like to thank The Law Teacher anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Maine became the first holder of the Chair of Historical and Comparative Jurisprudence at Oxford in 1869.

2 Uwe Kischel, Comparative Law (OUP 2019) 4. It must also examine more than one legal system, hence the teaching of Roman law is not considered “comparative” in this article unless actively compared with the common law.

3 K Zweigert and H Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (Tony Weir tr, 3rd edn, Clarendon Press 1998) 21. See also Bernard Rudden, “Comparative Law as a Remedial Subject” (1982) 16 The Law Teacher 141.

4 Martha C Nussbaum, “Cultivating Humanity in Legal Education” (2003) 70 The University of Chicago Law Review 265, 275.

5 EU law was adopted as a core subject for the QLD in England and Wales from academic year 1995/1996.

6 See Cherry James and John Koo, “A Reordering: To Teach EU Law or Not?” (2024) 58 The Law Teacher 186; Victoria Roper, Rachel Dunn and David Sixsmith, “The Impact of the SQE on Undergraduate Legal Education in England and Wales: A Content Analysis” (2025) 45 LS 375.

7 Esin Örücü, “Teaching Comparative Law and Comparative Law Teaching in the UK” in John Bell (ed), Studies in UK Law 2002 (BIICL 2002) 3, 16. Örücü’s own career as a comparative lawyer is a remarkable one, starting at the University of Istanbul before joining the University of Glasgow in 1976 as a Lecturer in Jurisprudence and Comparative Law. For a fascinating account of her career in her own words, see < www.gla.ac.uk/schools/law/100years/100voices/esinorucu/ > accessed 19 January 2026.

8 See the special issue on “Brexit and the Law School” (2019) 53(2) The Law Teacher, edited by Dr Chloe Wallace and Professor Tamara Hervey < www.tandfonline.com/toc/ralt20/53/2?nav=tocList > accessed 19 January 2026.

9 John W Cairns, “Development of Comparative Law in Great Britain” in Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (2nd edn, OUP 2019) 111.

10 Cotter and Dewhurst report that in 1967, before its removal from the Bar Examinations, Roman law was a compulsory subject in the law degree of 10 out of the 18 law schools where it was provided: John Cotter and Elaine Dewhurst, “Lessons from Roman Law: EU Law in England and Wales after Brexit” (2019) 53 The Law Teacher 173. In contrast, in Scotland, passing the Roman Law of Property and Obligations remains compulsory to train to be an Advocate: Faculty of Advocates < www.advocates.org.uk/media/2363/regulations-as-to-intrants.pdf > accessed 19 January 2026.

11 See eg James Bryce, “The History of Legal Development at Rome and in England” and “Marriage and Divorce in Roman and in English Law”, both in James Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence (2 vols, Clarendon Press 1901) vol 2, 338ff and 381ff.

12 See Joanna McCunn, “Henry Thomas Colebrooke” in James Goudkamp and Donal Nolan (eds), Scholars of Contract Law (Hart Publishing 2022) 78–79.

13 See Zweigert and Kötz (n 3) 2. The Congress attracted experts from every part of Europe to discuss the nature, aims and general interest of comparative law: David S Clark, “Centennial World Congress on Comparative Law: Nothing New in 2000? Comparative Law in 1900 and Today” (2001) 75 Tul L Rev 871, 875–88. Celebrated English jurist Pollock was the Special Reporter on the History of the Science of Comparative Law (see Frederick Pollock, “The History of Comparative Jurisprudence” (1903) 5 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation (New Series) 74). Pollock at the Congress acknowledged the legacy English comparative law owed to Maine.

14 HC Gutteridge, “The Value of Comparative Law” [1931] Journal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law 26, 28.

15 RW Lee, “Comparative Law and Comparative Lawyers” [1936] Journal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law 1, 3.

16 HC Gutteridge, “Comparative Law as a Factor in English Legal Education” (1941) 23 Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law (3rd Series) 130. Gutteridge was Professor of Comparative Law at the University of Cambridge.

17 See Jack Beatson and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds), Jurists Uprooted: German-Speaking Emigré Lawyers in Twentieth Century Britain (OUP 2004).

18 Pragmatically French was the foreign language, after Latin, that it was believed most students would be likely to know. Even academics proficient in German law feared that German law would be “beyond” most students.

19 FH Lawson, A Common Lawyer Looks at the Civil Law (Greenwood Press 1955). Lawson was Oxford Chair of Comparative Law.

20 CJ Hamson, Executive Discretion and Judicial Control: An Aspect of the French Conseil d’Etat (Stevens & Sons 1954). Hamson was Cambridge Chair of Comparative Law.

21 Basil Markesinis with Jörg Fedke, Engaging with Foreign Law (Hart Publishing 2009) 12.

22 JF Garner, “The Use of the Comparative Method in University Courses in Law” (1971) 11 Journal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law (New Series) 134, 134.

23 Otto Kahn-Freund, “Comparative Law as an Academic Subject” (1966) 82 LQR 40, 53. Garner (n 22) also acknowledged that a grounding in the methods of approach to a foreign system of law might be useful if the UK entered the “Common Market”: at 138.

24 Malta and Cyprus are mixed common law/civil law systems. Ireland, of course, is a fellow common law country.

25 See Mathias Siems, “Foreign-Trained Legal Scholars in the UK: ‘Irritants’ or ‘Change Agents’?” (2021) 41 LS 373, 374.

26 Universities UK, “Higher Education in Facts and Figures 2019” < www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/sites/default/files/field/downloads/2021-08/higher-education-facts-and-figures-2019.pdf > accessed 19 January 2026.

27 “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law” COM (2011) 0635 final. Not all reactions were positive, see, eg G McMeel, “The Proposal for a Common European Sales Law: Next Stop a European Contract Code?” (2012) 27 Butterworths Journal of International Banking & Financial Law 3.

28 Xavier Blanc-Jouvan, “The Teaching of Comparative Law: Goals and Methods” (1994) 3 Asia Pacific Law Review 72, 72.

29 K Zweigert and H Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (Tony Weir tr, 1st edn, Clarendon Press 1977).

30 See eg Basil S Markesinis, A Comparative Introduction to the German Law of Tort (Clarendon Press 1986); BS Markesinis, W Lorenz and G Dannemann, The German Law of Obligations, vol 1 The Law of Contracts and Restitution: A Comparative Introduction (Clarendon Press 1997).

31 B Rudden, “Review of A Comparative Introduction to the German Law of Tort ” (1987) 46 CLJ 161, 163.

32 TB Smith, “Law Reform in a Mixed Civil Law and Common Law Jurisdiction” (1974–1975) 35 Louisiana Law Review 927, 928.

33 Basil Markesinis, “Comparative Law – A Subject in Search of an Audience” (1990) 53 MLR 1, 1.

34 Peter Birks, “The Academic and the Practitioner” (1998) 18 LS 397, 408.

35 Örücü (n 7).

36 As seen by the courses operating in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

37 Örücü (n 7) 13.

38 Örücü (n 7) 16.

39 A decision was taken by the professional bodies in the 1970s to make both branches of the profession graduate-entry professions. This occurred for solicitors in 1971 and for barristers in 1979: Andrew Boon and Julian Webb, “Legal Education and Training in England and Wales: Back to the Future?” (2008) 58 Journal of Legal Education 79, 87–88. For Scotland, see < www.lawscot.org.uk/qualifying-and-education/qualifying-as-a-scottish-solicitor/llb-degree-in-law/ >. For Northern Ireland, see < https://lawsoc-ni.org/becoming-a-solicitor/routes-to-the-profession/law-degree-route > accessed 18 February 2026.

40 The subjects ultimately were: Criminal Law; Equity and Trusts; Law of the European Union; Obligations 1 (Contract); Obligations 2 (Tort); Property/Land Law; and Public Law (Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Human Rights Law). Arguments that comparative law should be a core subject have received little support; see eg Geoffrey Samuel, “Comparative Law as a Core Subject” (2001) 21 LS 444.

41 Contrast the “structural advantage” of the Scots four-year LLB degree which offers students a greater choice of options: Sylvie Da Lomba, Maria Fletcher and Rebecca Zahn, “Scottish Legal Education after Brexit” (2019) 53 The Law Teacher 138, 147.

42 See Michael Tomlinson, “Graduate Employability: A Review of Conceptual and Empirical Themes” (2012) 25 High Educ Policy 407 The author links the focus on employability with the massification of higher education and rising fee levels.

43 Malcolm Tight, “Employability: A Core Role of Higher Education?” (2023) 28 Research in Post-Compulsory Education 551, 564. He also finds evidence that students have largely adopted the dominant employability perspective.

44 See Jessica Guth and Tamara Hervey, “Threats to Internationalised Legal Education in the Twenty-First Century UK” (2018) 52 The Law Teacher 350, 354. See also Markesinis and Fedke (n 21) 355, noting the pressure on law schools to provide modules that the “market – employers, governments, or even the students themselves – considers as necessary”.

45 Roper, Dunn and Sixsmith (n 6) 392.

46 Örücü (n 7) 6. See also Esin Örücü, The Enigma of Comparative Law (Springer 2004) 66–67.

47 Garner (n 22) 134.

48 Kenneth GC Reid, “The Idea of Mixed Legal Systems” (2003) 78 Tulane Law Review 5.

49 See eg Peter de Cruz, Comparative Law in a Changing World (Routledge 1st edn 1995, 2nd edn 1999, 3rd edn 2007); Raymond Youngs, English, French & German Comparative Law (Routledge 1st edn 1998, 2nd edn 2007, 3rd edn 2014).

50 H Patrick Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World (OUP 1st edn 1999, 5th edn 2014); Werner Menski, Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa (1st edn Platinum Publishing 2000, 2nd edn CUP 2006).

51 By internationalisation, I mean the process by which universities modify their policies and programmes to reflect the changing global reality of education. It is thus a response to globalisation. See, further, Joan Squelch and Duncan Bentley, “Preparing Law Graduates for a Globalised World” (2017) 51 The Law Teacher 2, 6.

52 Nora V Demleitner, “Comparative Law in Legal Education” in Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (2nd edn, OUP 2019) 320, 337.

53 Michael P Waxman, “Teaching Comparative Law in the 21st Century: Beyond the Civil/Common Law Dichotomy” (2001) 51 Journal of Legal Education 305, 306.

54 Jaakko Husa, “Turning the Curriculum Upside Down: Comparative Law as an Educational Tool for Constructing the Pluralistic Legal Mind” (2009) 10 German Law Journal 913.

55 Lucinda Bromfield and Gillian Sproule, “SQE: A Challenge and an Opportunity” (2025) 59 The Law Teacher 280.

56 See eg Financial Times, “UK Universities Face Rising Risk of Bankruptcy, Says Regulator” Financial Times (London, 20 March 2025) < www.ft.com/content/b51294e2-bcc3-4ec7-b9f5-3c82ca76b3df > accessed 18 February 2026; BBC News, “Four in 10 Universities Face Financial Challenges” (8 May 2025) < www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8dgdlrdnrgo > accessed 18 February 2026. Bradney comments that the ability of law schools to attract undergraduates is seen by many as a measure of success: Anthony Bradney, “The Success of University Law Schools in England and Wales: Or How to Fail” (2018) 52 The Law Teacher 490, 493.

57 Alex Nicholson, “The Value of a Law Degree” (2020) 54 The Law Teacher 194, 195–96.

58 Northern Irish students, however, continue to benefit from funding from Ireland < /www.gov.ie/en/department-of-further-and-higher-education-research-innovation-and-science/press-releases/minister-harris-announces-mobility-funding-for-northern-ireland-higher-education-students/ > accessed 19 January 2026.

59 Universities UK International (UUKI), “Gone International: A New Generation” (April 2025).

60 The Turing Scheme is based on universities bidding for funding on an annual basis. For example, applications for the 2025 to 2026 academic year closed in March 2025. Universities found out whether they were successful in June 2025, communicating the information to students in July 2025 for those starting study abroad in September 2025. Problems with this timeframe are self-evident, not least that some students have, due to delays, received late notification after they have started their placement abroad. See < www.gov.uk/guidance/turing-scheme-apply-for-funding-for-international-placements > accessed 19 January 2026. For the 2025 to 2026 academic year, the budget for the Turing Scheme is £78 million with further education providers limited to applying for a maximum of £205,000. This is a reduction from £110 million the previous year and is believed to be part of measures sought by the Treasury to cut costs.

61 Rachel Brooks and Johanna Waters, “An Analysis of the UK’s Turing Scheme as a Response to Socio-Economic and Geo-Political Challenges” (2024) 88 Higher Education 1809.

62 The deal to re-enter Erasmus for 2027–2028 will cost the UK £570 million, with ministers targeting 100,000 participants including apprentices and adult learners: Helen Packer, “UK Aims to Widen Access to Erasmus after Agreeing to Join in 2027” Times Higher Education (London, 17 December 2025) < www.timeshighereducation.com/news/uk-aims-widen-access-erasmus-after-agreeing-join-2027 > accessed 18 February 2026. A UK national agency will be appointed to administer the Erasmus+ programme, with a dedicated website and guidance well ahead of the 2027 funding call.

63 See < www.gov.uk/guidance/the-erasmus-programme > accessed 19 January 2026.

64 “Young People from All Backgrounds to Get Opportunity to Study Abroad as UK-EU Deal Unlocks Erasmus+” (Government press release, 17 December 2025) < www.gov.uk/government/news/young-people-from-all-backgrounds-to-get-opportunity-to-study-abroad-as-uk-eu-deal-unlocks-erasmus > accessed 18 February 2026.

65 European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (which implements the Withdrawal Agreement, as agreed between the UK and the EU).

66 See eg James and Koo (n 6) who argue that the liberal case for an optional module on or related to EU law is a sound one. See also Claudina Richards, “Teaching European Union Law” in Viviane Gravey and Christopher Huggins (eds), Teaching European Union Politics (Edward Elgar 2024) 97 who argues that there are pragmatic reasons to include teaching the law of the UK’s largest trading partner, as seen, she argues, in Norway and Switzerland. Flear and Mac Síthigh also make a persuasive case for the need to retain EU law teaching in Northern Ireland: Mark L Flear and Daithí Mac Síthigh, “Northern Irish Legal Education after Brexit” (2019) 53 The Law Teacher 148.

67 Guth and Hervey (n 44) 356 who comment that “EU law embodies many aspects of comparative law.”

68 Cameron Giles and Yue Ang, “What Qualifies a Law Degree: Surveying Elective Module Provision in Undergraduate Legal Education across England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2023–2024” (2025) 59 The Law Teacher 2, 21.

69 Cotter and Dewhurst (n 10) 180.

70 Giles and Ang (n 68) 18. See also Roper, Dunn and Sixsmith (n 6) 382: approximately 80% of law schools in England and Wales still require the mandatory study of all the Foundational subjects.

71 See eg Luke Mason and Jessica Guth, “Re-Claiming Our Discipline” (2018) 52 The Law Teacher 379, 380. Nicholson identifies a perception that a degree of SQE alignment is likely to make a law course stand out to applicants: (n 57) 200.

72 Guth and Hervey (n 44) 370.

73 The teaching of languages in schools has not been compulsory post-age 14 since 2004 < https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/foreign-languages-primary-and-secondary-schools/#:~:text=Languages%20have%20not%20been%20compulsory%20in%20England,beyond%20the%20age%20of%2014%20since%202004 > accessed 19 January 2026.

74 As it was free text, some answers covered more than one category.

75 Gerhard Dannemann, “Comparative Law: Study of Similarities or Differences?” in Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (2nd edn, OUP 2019) 390.

76 Expressly raised in the reports of Bristol, Birmingham, Cambridge, Cardiff, Coventry, Edinburgh, Essex, Hull, KCL, Kingston, Oxford, Sheffield, UCL, Westminster.

77 This includes in Scotland modules dedicated to mixed legal systems to reflect the distinct nature of Scots law (Strathclyde).

78 Birks (n 34).

79 Six universities reported that dedicated comparative law modules had been suspended or withdrawn due to the retirement of key staff, lack of student interest or curriculum change: Glasgow, Sheffield, UCL, UEA, Westminster, York.

80 This is consistent with the findings of Giles and Ang (n 68) 10.

81 House of Commons Library, “International Students in UK Higher Education” < https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7976/#:~:text=In%202023%2F24%20there%20were%20732%2C285%20overseas%20students%20studying,was%20down%204%25%20from%20the%202022%2F23%20record%20high > accessed 19 January 2026.

82 Siems (n 25) 374.

83 In Siems’ 2021 study of foreign-trained legal scholars in the UK, he found 52.67% answered “yes” to the question, “Does Brexit make you consider leaving the UK?”: Siems (n 25) 385. Nevertheless, there seems to have been only a slight decrease in staff numbers from Europe post-Brexit, decreased by 0.5% from 2021–2022 to 2022–2023 < www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-research/publications/features/uk-higher-education-data-international/international-staff-data > (International staff data) accessed 19 January 2026.

84 Siems (n 25) 382. He notes, however, that it is easier for Anglophone foreign-trained legal scholars than non-Anglophone scholars.

85 See also Da Lomba, Fletcher and Zahn (n 41) on the distinctive nature of Scots law teaching.

86 See, for example, the Law with English Law LLB (Hons) (Aberdeen); the Aberdeen respondent remarks that “This is a unique and attractive offer, for both Scots and rest of the UK students. Studying this programme has been compared to learning two languages, and in practical terms it gives students the option to qualify in both law” and the Common Law LLB (Hons) (Glasgow).

87 Giles and Ang (n 68) 12–13; Roper, Dunn and Sixsmith (n 6).

88 Fiona Cownie, “Comparative Legal Education” in Jan Smits and others (eds), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (3rd edn, Edward Elgar 2023) 350.

89 See BBC, “Universities Reliant on Overseas Students – Report” (13 September 2023) < www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-66786377 > accessed 18 February 2026; HEPI / Kaplan International Pathways / Universities UK International / London Economics, “International Students Boost UK Economy by £41.9 Billion” < www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/05/16/international-students-boost-uk-economy-by-41-9-billion/ > accessed 19 January 2026.

90 Guth and Hervey (n 44) 352.

91 Note, however, concern that post-1992 universities in England and Wales may be more localised and community focused: Chloë J Wallace and Tamara K Hervey, “Brexit and the Law School: From Vacillating between Despair and Hope to Building Responsibility and Community” (2019) 53 The Law Teacher 221, 227. This does not mean, however, that students at these universities do not aspire for, or have an interest in, global practice.

92 < www.durham.ac.uk/research/institutes-and-centres/chinese-law-policy/ > accessed 19 January 2026.

93 < www.law.ox.ac.uk/chinese-law-discussion-group/chinese-law-discussion-group >; < www.law.ox.ac.uk/oxford-programme-in-asian-laws/oxford-programme-asian-laws > accessed 19 January 2026. See also the founding in 2025 of the Manchester University Asian Law Group spotlighting Asia-focused legal studies.

94 < www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global-centre-democratic-constitutionalism/about-global-centre-democratic-constitutionalism > accessed 19 January 2026, again supported by the high-profile appointment of US professor Erin Delaney.

95 Catherine Valcke, “Global Law Teaching” (2004) 54 Journal of Legal Education 160, 169. See also Squelch and Bentley (n 51) 4–6 who note that employers in their study sought law graduates with a good basic knowledge of different legal systems and an awareness of cultural, international and global issues having an impact on law.

96 Paulina E Wilson, “Comparative Law Outside the Ivory Tower: An Interdisciplinary Perspective” (2023) 43 LS 641, 642–43.

Annex 1.

2025 BACL survey on comparative law teaching in UK universities

Participating universities in alphabetical order

Aberdeen

Aston

Birmingham

Bristol

Cambridge

Cardiff

Coventry

Derby

Durham

Edinburgh

Essex

Exeter

Glasgow

Hull

Kent

King’s College London (KCL)

Kingston

Leeds

Lincoln

Liverpool John Moores

London School of Economics (LSE)

Manchester

Middlesex

Northumbria

Oxford

Oxford Brookes

Portsmouth

Queen Mary University of London (QMUL)

Queen’s University Belfast

Reading

Royal Holloway University of London (RHUL)

Sheffield

Strathclyde

Sussex

University College London (UCL)

University of East Anglia (UEA)

Warwick

Westminster

York

Geographical range

England (33 universities)

Scotland (4 universities)

Wales (1 university)

Northern Ireland (1 university)

- Share

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.

-

-