PRACTICE-ORIENTED
LEGAL EDUCATION SYSTEM: INNOVATION – EXPLORATION AT BIT LAW SCHOOL BASED ON
“TWO-WING SYNERGY AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL COLLABORATION”
SISTEMA DE EDUCACIÓN
JURÍDICA ORIENTADO A LA PRÁCTICA: INNOVACIÓN – EXPLORACIÓN EN LA FACULTAD DE
DERECHO BIT BASADA EN “SINERGIA DE DOS ALAS Y COLABORACIÓN TRIDIMENSIONAL”
Shouping Li I
Dezhong Guo II
Tianquan Sun III
Yi Pei IV
*
I College of Education, Beijing Institute of
Technology (BIT), Beijing, China
✉ lishouping@bit.edu.cn, guodezhong@163.com, suntianquan@bit.edu.cn, peiyi@bit.edu.cn
* Corresponding author: peiyi@bit.edu.cn
JEL Classification: I21,
I23, K10
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16914798
Received: 02/07/2025
Accepted: 13/08/2025
Legal education should be practice-oriented. However, practical
training remains a weak area globally. Traditional methods like moot courts,
legal clinics, and internships require further improvement. In response to new
circumstances, several targeted measures should be implemented. First,
ideological and political education should be integrated into practical legal
courses to help students understand the achievements of China’s rule–of–law
development and enhance their sense of social responsibility. Second, the
digitalization of practical training should be advanced through the use of
virtual simulation technologies, the establishment of smart legal laboratories,
and internships in legal technology firms. Third, internationalization should
be promoted by building collaborative innovation platforms for cultivating
international legal talent. Fourth, practical evaluation in professional degree
programs should be improved by establishing clear standards for Juris Master
thesis writing, including formats such as research reports and case analyses.
Keywords: practice-oriented, legal education, curriculum-based political
education, digitalization; internationalization.
Resumen
Palabras clave: educación jurídica orientada a la
práctica, educación política basada en el currículo, digitalización,
internacionalización.
Introduction
At its Third Plenary
Session, the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China adopted the
“Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Further
Deepening Reforms and Promoting Chinese-Style Modernization”, which explicitly
calls for “improving the practice-oriented education and training mechanisms in
law schools”. This marks an important step toward fully implementing the
guiding principles on legal education laid out by President Xi Jinping during
his 2017 visit to the China University of Political Science and Law. At that
time, President Xi stated, “Law is a highly practice-oriented discipline. Legal
education must strike a balance between theoretical knowledge and practical
training. We must dismantle institutional barriers between universities and
society, introduce high-quality practical teaching resources from government
and professional institutions into universities, and promote exchanges among
legal educators, researchers, and practitioners engaged in the rule of law”.
On November 27, 2023,
during the 10th collective study session of the 20th Central Political Bureau,
President Xi further emphasized: “We must adhere to the principle of
cultivating virtue and fostering talent, integrate moral and legal education,
strengthen discipline construction, enhance legal education, establish
practice-oriented training mechanisms, and cultivate a group of foreign-related
legal professionals who are politically steadfast, professionally competent,
familiar with international rules, and proficient in foreign-related legal
practice.”
Therefore, against the
strategic backdrop of intensifying global technological competition and the
restructuring of governance rules, the School of Law at Beijing Institute of
Technology (BIT) has developed a distinctively practice-oriented training model
aimed at cultivating foreign-related legal talent for international scientific
and technological organizations, which aligns with the demands of the times.
The current era is one of rapid technological advancement and unprecedented
global transformation.
The nation urgently
requires composite legal professionals who are well-versed in both ethics and
law to meet the needs of emerging productive forces such as artificial
intelligence, as well as international legal professionals capable of
addressing the challenges posed by the unprecedented global transformation.
China’s legal education has undergone substantial reforms in the area of
practical teaching in the new era, but in light of the new demands of the state
under the new era and new circumstances, further innovation in practice-based
legal education warrants close attention and in-depth study.
This article aims to
substantiate and explore innovations in the practice-oriented legal education
system. It includes the experience of the Beijing Institute of Technology's Law
School based on “two-wing synergy and three-dimensional collaboration”.
The
Essence of Legal Education: A Global Consensus on Practice-Oriented Education
and China’s Exploration
(i) The Shift Toward Practice in Legal Education Abroad
In the global
framework for cultivating legal talent, a practice-oriented approach has always
been a defining feature of legal education. In recent years, discussions on
legal education in both the civil law system and the common law system have
increasingly emphasized this orientation.
Traditional civil law
powerhouses such as Germany and France are shifting away from the
academic-oriented education model that has traditionally emphasized theoretical
instruction. Historically, law schools in European countries have adopted an
academic-oriented teaching approach, placing greater emphasis on knowledge
transmission. In civil law countries like France and Germany, the purpose of
legal education is to equip students with foundational knowledge in private,
public, and social law, enabling them to understand any new legal field or
legislation within a reasonable time frame during their future legal careers.
Similarly, legal education in British universities has traditionally been
scholarly and theoretical in nature, with little emphasis on practical
education.1
However, with the
evolution of the times and the mutual influence of legal education systems
across nations, the legal education systems of these countries have also
undergone changes. In 1967, the British “O’Meara Report” pointed out that in
British legal education, it is necessary to abandon the mindset that opposes
“academic knowledge” and “professional practice” or “theory” and “practice”,
and to strengthen the connection and collaboration between the legal profession
and university law schools to jointly improve the quality of legal education.2
Currently, the
characteristics of German legal education include a practice-oriented approach,
emphasizing the cultivation of legal professionals with a strong integration of
theory and practice.3 Contemporary German legal education is
practice-oriented legal dogmatic. The practice-oriented nature of German legal
education also enables university professors, judges, and other practitioners
to form a professional community capable of collaborating on the development
and writing of commentaries.4 “Case-based teaching methods” have
been introduced into UK in recent years to meet the “needs of legal reasoning”,
and to train students in professional skills and techniques.1
Before recent reforms
in legal education, both Japan and South Korea faced challenges such as a
disconnect between academic legal education and legal professional education,
as well as a lack of practical courses aimed at cultivating legal skills and
promoting legal ethics.5 Subsequently, Japan in 2004 and South Korea
in 2008 introduced reforms inspired by the American law school education model,
shifting their legal education systems toward a more practice-oriented and
professionally aligned approach.
Legal education in the
United States and Canada can be categorized together. Since the late 19th
century, U.S. legal education has primarily adopted the Socratic case-based
teaching method advocated by Harvard Law School Dean Langdell. Langdell and his
colleagues have consistently maintained that law is a science, and promoted the
notion that the library is the appropriate workshop for professors and
students; just as the university laboratory serves chemists and physicists, the
natural history museum serves for zoologists, and the botanical garden serves
botanists.6 Langdell’s teaching method is considered a
theory-oriented approach, and in recent years, it has faced increasing
criticism: Langdell’s educational concept treats its subject matter as a set of
pre-determined rules or methods that exist “outside” and in a passive domain
separate from and independent of students. This notion is completely
inconsistent with the now widely accepted fact that what is taught in law
schools is a human creation, a socially constructed entity... A basic
understanding of legal practice and even legal theory can only be gained
through the actual execution of legal tasks or the observation of legal
behavior.7 Langdell separates theory from practice, focusing solely
on legal theory education.8
Despite ongoing
criticism, the case method remains the dominant approach in legal education in
the United States and Canada and has been widely adopted in many countries
worldwide. Most agree that the strength of the case method lies not in the
knowledge it imparts but in its cultivation of analytical skills. Despite the
extensive criticism directed at this pedagogical paradigm, no viable
alternative has emerged to replace it. Rote teaching methods cannot make a
comeback, the ambiguous intertwining of law and social sciences has never
threatened the core status of the case method, and the rapidly advancing
clinic-style legal education reform has only had a minor formal impact on it.
The case method has been, and remains clearly the best method of legal education.9
However, criticism of
the lack of practicality in legal education has persisted in the United States:
the current legal education reform movement is built upon a century of
criticism and recommendations for reform. Experts have called for reform in a
series of reports, including the 1879 American Bar Association report
published, the Redlich reports of 1890 and 1914, the Reed report of 1921, the
Carrington report of 1971, the Crampton report of 1979, the 1982 McTear Report,
the 2007 Klea Best Practices Report, and the 2007 Carnegie Report. These
reports and other analyses have consistently criticized law schools for
overemphasizing the teaching of legal theory and analytical skills at the
expense of practical legal training.10 In the context of poor
employment prospects for law school graduates, the deficiency of insufficient
practicality in legal education becomes even more evident. The backdrop for the
renewed focus on making legal education more practical is the bleak job market
for lawyers.11 In the United States, there have even been cases
where law school graduates, dissatisfied with employment prospects, sued their
alma maters for allegedly exaggerating graduate employment rates. Scholars have
also noted the cost pressures practical training imposes on law schools. These
criticisms of legal education push law schools toward two seemingly
contradictory goals: (1) providing more practical training for more students,
and (2) reducing operational costs.
(ii) The Practical Orientation of Legal Education in
China: From Imitating to Developing Distinctive Characteristics
The growing emphasis
on the practicality of legal education has become a global consensus. What
should be the objectives and requirements of a practice-oriented approach to
legal education?
In response to
societal calls for improved practical teaching, the United States has
continuously refined its law school curricula and accreditation standards,
thereby enriching the content of practical legal education. The American Bar
Association (ABA) established the “Future of Legal Education Task Force”,
tasked with reviewing current issues and conditions in U.S. legal education and
proposing feasible recommendations with a reasonable chance of widespread
acceptance. Its 2014 report stated: “The common core purpose of all law schools
is to prepare individuals to provide legal and related services in a
professional and responsible manner. This fundamental fact is often downplayed.
There is a call for greater emphasis on skill training, experiential learning,
and the development of practice-related competencies, and many law schools have
expanded opportunities for students to prepare for practice. However, more work
needs to be done”. In its “2024–2025 Law School Accreditation Standards”, the
ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar require: “Law
schools should offer one or more experiential courses that each student must
complete, totaling at least six credits. Experiential courses must be
simulation courses, legal clinics, or field internships”. Additionally, such
experiential courses have detailed and specific definitions and course design
requirements.
Chinese scholars have
also consistently emphasized the practical orientation of legal education.
Since the reform and opening-up, China’s legal education has always taken “the
integration of theory and practice” as the main thread of reform. President Xi
emphasized that “law is a highly practice-oriented discipline”, thereby
anchoring the fundamental direction of China’s legal education. From the
perspective of domestic practice, the practical orientation of China’s legal
education has a dual connotation: on one hand, it must inherit the tradition of
“explaining legal principles through cases”, such as strengthening legal
interpretation and application capabilities through “guiding case” teaching; on
the other hand, it must also confront the legal challenges of the new era,
innovating in fields such as artificial intelligence, data governance, and the
resolution of cross-border disputes. Chinese scholars also emphasize the
practical orientation of legal studies. Social sciences and legal studies
primarily belong to “practical-oriented” research, with the goal of resolving
inconsistencies between factual realities and theoretical frameworks.12
The stronger the practicality of criminal law doctrine, the higher its
verifiability and credibility; however, China’s criminal law has significant
room for improvement in addressing practical challenges.13 The
practical orientation is particularly evident in certain applied legal
education programs: unlike academic talent cultivation models, legal education
programs related to international engineering exhibit a strong practical
orientation in the setting of educational objectives.14
Professor He Meihuan believes that legal professional education should
provide training in intelligent skills, which refer to the ability to use
symbols and constitute a procedural form of cognition. Specific content should
include skills training in identifying legal issues and constructing effective
and relevant arguments on legal issues; intelligent skills differ from
practical skills such as drafting legal documents or delivering compelling oral
or written arguments in various settings. She does not recommend transforming all
legal courses into skill-development courses but suggests modifying only some
courses for this purpose, while reclassifying others as knowledge-transmission
courses.15 Professor Huang Wenyi argues that practical teaching
courses primarily focus on imparting legal practical knowledge and experience,
with internships and training in legal institutions as the main form of
instruction. Their primary objective is to cultivate students’ practical
abilities and real-world skills.
The above views all
reflect the in-depth consideration of the practical origins of legal education
in China. The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the
Communist Party of China explicitly called for “improving the education and
training mechanism of law schools oriented toward practice”, marking that
China’s legal education is transitioning from a stage primarily focused on the
transmission of theoretical knowledge to a new phase of high-quality
development centered on the cultivation of practical abilities.
The
Challenges Facing Legal Education in China: The Reality of Knowledge-Oriented
Education and the Need for Transformation
(i) Multiple Issues Related to Weak Practicality: The
Obsolescence of Traditional Models
Although a
practice-oriented approach has become the consensus, legal education in China
still faces the dilemma of “knowing is easy, doing is hard”. In terms of
teaching content, textbooks lag behind legal practice, and there is a lack of
summary of cutting-edge practical experience in emerging fields such as
“personal information protection”, “platform economy antitrust”, and other
emerging fields, with classroom instructions still primarily focused on legal
commentary and rarely delving into the deeper practical logic such as “rule
creation”, “interest balancing”, and “scenario-based compliance”. Traditional
practical forms such as mock trials are often limited to simulating court
proceedings, with training on core aspects like evidence cross-examination,
strategic maneuvering, and courtroom rhetoric remaining superficial; legal
clinics are constrained by the lack of legal standing for students and
inadequate risk control mechanisms, making it difficult to handle and discuss
complex cases, thereby limiting both social and educational benefits; in
professional internships, students often find themselves stuck in
administrative tasks such as document sorting, with limited opportunities to
participate in substantive legal matters, leading to the situation where “after
a month of internship, little is gained”.
The primary causes of
these challenges are as follows: first, teaching content remains focused on the
transmission of traditional legal knowledge and theory, with insufficient
emphasis on the progresses, achievements, and lessons learned from China’s current
legal practice; second, traditional practical teaching methods such as mock
trials, legal clinics, and professional internships lack sufficient alignment
with real-world legal practice; third, there is a lack of adaptation to new
practical teaching methods involving digital technology and artificial
intelligence; fourth, opportunities for international legal practice teaching
are scarce and costly; fifth, teaching evaluations remain theory- and
knowledge-oriented, with course assessments still primarily focused on
knowledge and theory, and the legal professional qualification exam still
containing a significant proportion of knowledge-based questions, while legal
master’s theses are primarily academic in nature.
This has led to the
unfavorable situation described by Professor Zhang Wenxian, where the pass rate
for Chinese law graduates applying to the International Criminal Court is
extremely low,16 and as pointed out by Professor He Meihuan, Chinese law schools are unable to cultivate a
large number of high-end international legal professionals,15 which
has yet to be reversed.
(ii) The Contemporary Challenges of Practical Teaching in
the New Era: Multi-dimensional Challenges Driving Reform and Innovation
At this historical
juncture where the comprehensive advancement of rule of law intersects with the
technological revolution, practical teaching in legal education is undergoing
profound structural challenges. The new era of rule of law construction poses a
“breakthrough question” for legal education. These challenges stem both from
the strategic demands of modernizing national governance and from the
disruptive transformations in the legal industry ecosystem, collectively
outlining the urgent need for reform in practical teaching.
1. The Contemporary Challenge of Value-Driven
Leadership Takes Center Stage
As the deepening of
socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics progresses, practical
teaching is no longer confined to the cultivation of legal skills but also
bears the solemn responsibility of disseminating legal civilization and
fostering a deep-rooted belief in the rule of law. Currently, China has seen a
wealth of vibrant legal practices emerge in areas such as grassroots
governance, social welfare, and technological innovation—from the evolution of
the “Fengqiao Experience” into a legal model for
grassroots social governance, to the new forms of rights protection practices
spurred by the implementation of the Personal Information Protection Law.
These developments
provide a fertile ground for practical legal education. For example, in legal
clinic courses, topics such as “compliance reviews of community elderly care
services” and “mediation of land transfer disputes in rural revitalization” are
introduced. When handling specific cases, students not only gain an
understanding of the operational logic of grassroots legal systems but also
deeply grasp the core value of China’s legal system, which is
“people-centered”. This model of naturally integrating ideological and
political elements into legal practice training is reshaping the educational
logic of legal education, enabling students to build confidence in the rule of
law while solving real-world problems and avoiding the pitfall of “technological
instrumentalism”.
2. The Technological Revolution is Reshaping Legal
Practice and Accelerating the Smart Transformation of Practical Teaching
The widespread
adoption of technologies such as artificial intelligence and blockchain has
shifted legal work from “experience-driven” to “data-driven”, with new
scenarios such as smart contract review and judicial big data analysis emerging
constantly. Traditional teaching methods like mock trials and case analysis are
no longer sufficient to address cutting-edge issues like “algorithmic
discrimination in legal determinations” and “liability allocation in accidents
involving intelligent connected vehicles”.
The exploration by the
School of Law at BIT is particularly enlightening: our school has developed an
“Intelligent Technology Risk Legal Prevention Virtual Simulation Platform”
based on the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s key laboratory.
Students can simulate handling complex issues such as “cross-border data flow
compliance assessment” and “copyright ownership of generative artificial
intelligence” in a virtual environment, and through “human–machine
interaction”, students master a composite analytical framework combining “legal
rules and technical principles”. Additionally, the “Legal Technology Internship
Base” co-built with technology companies allows students to participate in
real-world projects such as “establishing an AI ethics committee for
enterprises” and “legal compliance verification of blockchain evidence
systems”, fostering “technology-sensitive” legal thinking on the front lines of
technology application and effectively bridging the “technology gap” between
education and industry.
3. The Profound Transformation of Global Governance
Demands Higher Standards for Foreign-Related Legal Education
As the Belt and Road
Initiative progresses, China’s involvement in areas such as the reconstruction
of international trade rules and the development of outer space governance
systems has significantly increased, necessitating a large number of composite talents
who are “well-versed in international rules and skilled in cross-border legal
practice”. However, traditional foreign-related legal education often remains
at the level of interpreting international legal provisions, lacking
comprehensive training in “rule application + negotiation and bargaining +
cultural adaptation”.
In response, practical
teaching is attempting to transition from “theoretical discussions” to
“simulated real-world scenarios”: on one hand, it introduces real-world cases
from international organizations for scenario-based simulations, such as
organizing students to role-play as “Chinese and American representatives in
the WTO dispute settlement mechanism” and conduct debate exercises around
“disputes over digital trade tariffs”, while inviting international arbitrators
to provide practical guidance; on the other hand, relying on the “Cooperative
Training Base for Foreign-Related Legal Talent”, students are dispatched to
internships at institutions including the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (UNCTAD) and the International Commercial Dispute Prevention
and Settlement Organization (ICDPASO), where they are able to gain the ability
to express “Chinese perspectives and proposals” at the scene of international
rule-making. This three-dimensional training of “classroom simulation—institutional
internship—international participation” is cultivating “legal diplomacy talent”
capable of effectively safeguarding national interests in global governance.
4. The Rapid Development of Professional Degree
Education Calls for Tiered and Refined Practical Training.
The expansion of the
Master of Laws (LL.M.) and Doctor of Laws (J.D.) programs has made the
distinction between “academic-oriented” and “practical-oriented” talent
cultivation more pronounced. For Master of Laws students, the teaching
evaluation system is shifting from a “thesis-oriented” to a “problem-oriented”
model, encouraging the substitution of traditional academic theses with
practical outcomes such as the “Handbook on Legal Risks of Overseas Investment
by Enterprises” and the “Report on the Construction of a Compliance Management
System for Local Governments”, emphasizing the ability to “solve real-world
problems”.
For Doctor of Laws
(practical track) students, research topics must closely align with practical
needs such as judicial reform and social governance, such as “Technical
Implementation Pathways for the Uniform Judgment Mechanism for Similar Cases”
and “Research on the Standardization of Comprehensive Law Enforcement at the
Grassroots Level”, ensuring that research outcomes can be directly converted
into policy recommendations or industry standards. This “demand-driven
education” and “customized training” reform is addressing the disconnect
between professional degree education and occupational demands, enabling talent
cultivation to more precisely align with the diverse needs of legal practice.
These intertwined and
mutually reinforcing contemporary challenges all point to a core consensus:
legal practice-oriented education must break free from traditional frameworks,
establish a solid foundation through value-driven guidance, explore new horizons
through technological empowerment, broaden its perspective through global
engagement, and highlight its unique characteristics through tiered
cultivation. Only in this way can we cultivate outstanding legal professionals
who understand China’s national conditions and are capable of addressing future
challenges, thereby providing a solid talent foundation for the modernization
of national governance.
Adhering
to Tradition while Innovating: Building a Practical Teaching System with “Two-Wing Synergy and Three-Dimensional
Collaboration”
In a new era where
intelligent technology is reshaping the practice of law and global governance
calls for foreign-related legal talent, the shift toward practical legal
education has evolved from a shared concept to a practical endeavor. The School
of Law at BIT has firmly established the foundation of “adhering to tradition”
while boldly exploring the path of “innovation”. By taking “intelligent
technology law” and “international law” as the driving “two wings”, it has
constructed a “three-dimensional” training system featuring “differentiated
undergraduate education, industry—academia integration in master’s programs,
and a dual-track system for doctoral development”. This system both upholds the
fundamental principles of cultivating legal professional competence and breaks
through the boundaries of traditional legal education.
By deeply integrating
intelligent technology empowerment and international legal needs into the
training program, the school has broken down disciplinary barriers in course
design, aligned practical training with real-world scenarios, and emphasized a
practice-oriented evaluation system, thereby exploring a new path for practical
teaching that combines Chinese characteristics with contemporary features. This
reform not only responds to the national strategy of “cultivating outstanding
legal talent with both moral integrity and legal expertise”, but also provides
an innovative model for the high-quality development of legal education in the
new era through its distinctive breakthroughs in “two wings” and the
integration of “three dimensions”.
(i) Policy Orientation on Legal Practice Education in
China
In recent years,
China’s education policies have consistently emphasized the practical
orientation of legal education. In 2012, the Ministry of Education and other
departments issued the “Opinions on Further Strengthening Practical Education
in Higher Education Institutions”, which stated that the proportion of
practical teaching should be increased, ensuring that humanities and social
sciences undergraduate programs account for no less than 15% of total credits
(class hours), and that professional degree master’s programs include no less
than six months of practical training.
In 2018, the Ministry
of Education and the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission issued the
“Opinions on Adhering to the Integration of Morality and Law and Implementing
the Excellence in Legal Talent Education and Training Program 2.0”, which proposed
as follows: emphasize practice and strengthen the core of legal education;
efforts should be made to strengthen legal professional knowledge education,
incorporating the latest experiences and vivid cases from China’s legal
practice, as well as the latest research findings on the theoretical framework
of socialism with Chinese characteristics, into classrooms and textbooks, and
promptly converting them into teaching resources.
The 2023 Opinions of
the Two Offices proposed the following: updating and improving the legal
professional curriculum system, and advancing the construction of legal
professional theoretical teaching courses and practical teaching courses in an
integrated manner; strengthen legal practical teaching, deepen collaborative
education, and promote in-depth coordination between law schools and legal work
departments in the formulation of talent cultivation plans, course
construction, textbook construction, student internships, and practical
training; accelerate the cultivation of urgently needed foreign-related legal
talent with an international perspective and proficiency in international law
and comparative law. The Ministry of Education’s “Opinions on Strengthening the
Cultivation of Foreign-Related Legal Talent” explicitly proposes “building a
composite legal talent pool that understands international rules and adapts to
high-level opening up”. The project addresses the talent gap in the “science
and technology + law” interdisciplinary field, serving as a direct
implementation of foreign-related legal base construction and support for the
“Global Development Initiative” and “Global Security Initiative”.
(ii) Reforming Traditional Practical Teaching:
Strengthening Foundations and Building a Solid Base
Traditional practical
forms serve as the “ballast” of legal education, bearing the core function of
cultivating legal professional competence. Under the complex demands of legal
practice in the new era, its value is not diminished but urgently needs to be
revitalized—it is necessary to innovate forms while retaining the essence,
enhance effectiveness while inheriting experience, and enable classic platforms
such as mock trials, legal clinics, and professional internships to break
through the bottlenecks of “process-oriented” and “performance-oriented”
approaches, truly becoming bridges connecting theory and practice [17].
By restructuring training logic, improving institutional safeguards, and
precisely aligning with practical needs, traditional practical teaching is
transitioning from “formality preservation” to “substantive empowerment”,
laying a solid practical foundation for legal talent in the new era.
1. Mock Trials: From “Competitive Performance” to
“Full-Scale Practical Training”
To address the current
situation where “few participate and many observe”, mock trials should be
incorporated into the required course curriculum. For example, BIT offers “Mock
Court on Outer Space Law (Bilingual)”, using international space law competitions
and the Jessup International Law Mock Court as platforms. Students are required
to fully participate in document drafting, courtroom debates, and legal
research, with teachers, judges, and lawyers providing joint feedback. This
transforms the classroom into a “miniature judicial arena”, achieving a leap
from “process simulation” to “legal thinking training”.
2. Legal Clinics: Dual-Drive Approach of Risk
Prevention and Domain Expansion.
Resolving these issues
requires enhanced collaboration between judicial and educational departments
for coordinated talent development, top-level design, and the introduction of
insurance mechanisms to mitigate risks. First, the types and scope of legal clinics
should be expanded to include criminal law clinics, labor law clinics, women
and children’s law clinics, and disability law clinics targeting vulnerable
groups, as well as intellectual property law clinics for economically
disadvantaged intellectual property rights holders. Second, judicial and
political departments should establish relevant regulations to grant students
at legal clinics formal, relatively professional legal representative status,
enabling them to participate in investigations, court proceedings, and
mediation activities. Third, drawing on the professional liability insurance
for lawyers, establish business insurance for legal clinics to compensate
clients for economic losses caused by the negligence of clinic students,
thereby ensuring the healthy development of legal clinic education. Fourth,
break away from traditional civil and criminal fields and establish “artificial
intelligence ethics clinics” and “cross-border data compliance clinics” to
serve both technology companies and vulnerable groups, allowing students to
gain practical experience in addressing cutting-edge issues such as
“algorithmic discrimination” and “cross-border data flow disputes”.
3. Professional Internships: Balancing Precise Matching
and Diverse Evaluation.
Tasks such as filing
and organizing documents are also part of the work students should understand
and master, as they constitute a component of labor education. In practical
units such as patent agencies and law firms, business process management is also
a critical task that must be executed without error; however, as law students,
they should primarily engage in substantive legal work, such as accompanying
lawyers in client consultations, participating in client negotiations, drafting
legal documents, observing court proceedings, or serving as intern judicial
assistants or intern prosecutorial assistants in judicial or prosecutorial
proceedings. The improvement of internship work requires strengthened
communication and collaboration between law schools and practical departments,
continuous refinement of evaluation mechanisms, recognition of outstanding
performance, and the gradual formation of a positive and effective cooperative
atmosphere.
Based on this, the
School of Law at BIT has implemented an “internship position menu system”,
where courts, procuratorates, law firms, and enterprises provide substantive
positions such as “judicial assistant” and “compliance officer”, and clearly
define internship task lists (e.g. independently drafting contracts,
participating in case analysis). A “process-based evaluation +
outcome-oriented” assessment system has been established, incorporating
criteria such as the quality of legal documents and the adoption of case
handling recommendations into the scoring standards to prevent internships from
becoming mere formalities.
(iii) Innovative
Breakthroughs in Practical Teaching in the New Era: BIT Law School’s “Two-Wing
Synergy” in Practical Education
Building on a
foundation of upholding principles, the School of Law at BIT has established
“intelligent technology law” and “foreign-related law” as its “two wings”,
creating a differentiated practical teaching model that precisely addresses the
needs of the times:
1. Intelligent Technology Law Wing: Empowered by
Technology, Creating a New “Law + X” Ecosystem.
The school relies on
the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s “Intelligent Technology
Risk Legal Prevention Laboratory” to construct an integrated chain of
“courses–platform–training”: in terms of course design, it offers cutting-edge
courses such as “Artificial Intelligence Law” and “Blockchain Legal
Regulation”, analyzing new legal issues such as liability determination in
autonomous driving accidents and copyright ownership in generative artificial
intelligence; regarding technological empowerment, it has developed a virtual
simulation teaching platform to simulate scenarios such as algorithmic
discrimination dispute mediation and cross-border data flow compliance reviews,
enabling students to master the analytical framework for technology-related
legal issues through “human–machine” interaction; as for practical training,
the school has partnered with Xiaobaogong, Tencent,
Sina, Huawei, and others to establish internship bases, where students
participate in real-world projects such as “smart contract code review” and
“corporate data compliance system construction”. This approach cultivates
composite talents who understand both technological principles and legal
regulations, addressing the shortage of legal professionals in the era of
intelligent technology.
Since 2018, the School
of Law at BIT has collaborated with North University of China Law Database to
explore deeper integration between legal education and technology. In 2024, the
summer internship at Peking University Law School placed special emphasis on
the construction of intelligent agents based on generative artificial
intelligence, providing students with an intelligent agent construction
platform and organizing them to engage in intelligent agent construction
activities based on real legal practice scenarios.
At the end of the
internship, an intelligent agent development competition was held. Participants
focused on three practical scenarios—mock trials, people’s mediation, and
intelligent question–and–answer systems—demonstrating their ability to combine
theoretical knowledge with technological applications.
2. International Legal Wing: Global Perspective,
Building a “Rule–Practice–Governance” Full Chain
Following the approval
of the “Innovative Base for Collaborative Cultivation of Foreign-Related Legal
Talent” in 2024, the School of Law at BIT has established deep collaborations
with the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Resolution Organization
and the Asia–Pacific Space Cooperation Organization: At the course level, it
offers “International Science and Technology Organization Law” (bilingual) and
“Digital Trade Rules and Chinese Practice”, inviting officials from
international organizations to lecture on the WTO dispute resolution mechanism
and international investment arbitration practices; At the practical level, a
pathway has been established for “international organization internships,
cross-border legal negotiations, and global rule research”. Students can
participate in policy consultations at the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development or play the role of “national representatives” in mock
international court competitions to practice the interpretation of
international treaties and dispute resolution. At the research level, relying
on the “Global Governance and Science and Technology Ethics Research
Institute”, students are encouraged to participate in research topics such as
“Belt and Road” investment rule innovation and the construction of outer space
governance systems, transforming academic achievements into “Chinese solutions”
for international negotiations, and cultivating “legal diplomats” with both a
sense of national pride and a global perspective.
(iv) Three-dimensional Co-construction: A Comprehensive
Advancement of the Practical Training System Across All Academic Levels
With “two wings” as
its distinctive support, the School of Law at BIT has further developed a
“three-dimensional” training system that integrates undergraduate, master’s,
and doctoral programs, enabling a spiral-shaped improvement in practical
abilities:
1. Undergraduate Stage: Targeted Training to Establish
a Solid Practical Foundation
The school launched
the only dual degree program in law and artificial intelligence approved by the
Ministry of Education in 2021, which has now run for four sessions, having
trained 120 students. The program adopts a composite training model combining “core
law courses + computer science fundamentals + technology governance modules”.
Students must study the Civil Code and the Data Security Law while also
acquiring skills in Python data processing and blockchain technology
principles. Upon graduation, they must complete interdisciplinary capstone
projects such as “Legal Risk Assessment of Smart Contracts”, targeting emerging
roles in corporate legal affairs for technology companies and compliance for
internet platforms.
Additionally, the
school launched the “International Legal Elite Program” in 2024, collaborating
with the School of Foreign Languages and the International Organizations
Innovation School to implement a “Legal English Intensive + International Rules
Reading + Overseas Internship” plan. Students must undergo “immersive” training
through simulated WTO dispute resolution and participation in international
organization internships to master skills such as cross-border investment
compliance review and drafting international commercial arbitration documents,
becoming a reserve force for international legal affairs with “strong language
skills, familiarity with rules, and negotiation prowess”.
The school also places
great emphasis on strengthening legal education fundamentals, continuing to
offer the “Legal Studies Specialized Class” to solidify the foundation of legal
education and reinforce a “grassroots legal practice” orientation. Through projects
such as “Community Legal Advisor” and “Court Expedited Trial Internship”,
students engage directly with practical issues like marital and family disputes
and neighborhood conflict mediation, cultivating pragmatic, competent local
legal professionals who underpin the grassroots development of the rule of law
in China.
2. Master’s Degree: Industry–Academia Integration with
a Clear Practical Focus.
Full-time master’s
programs focus on cutting-edge areas such as “Intelligent Technology Law” and
“Foreign-Related Economic Law”, leveraging research platforms to undertake
national key projects (e.g. “Research on the Legal Liability System for
Autonomous Driving”), participating in the formulation of judicial
interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court and local legislative research,
and writing papers based on frontline legal practice. Part-time master’s
programs implement an “industry mentor system”, collaborating with corporate
legal departments and law firms to establish “compliance management workshops”
and “Intellectual Property Protection Projects”, requiring students to submit
practical outcomes such as “Legal Risk Assessment Reports for Corporate
Overseas Investments”, achieving learning as practice, graduation as employment
readiness.
3. Doctoral Program: Dual-Track Approach Serving
National Strategic Needs.
Doctor of Law programs
emphasize theoretical depth, conducting foundational research in areas such as
“Legal Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Ethics” and “Construction of
Global Digital Governance Rules”, providing intellectual support for innovations
in legal principles; Doctor of Law (Practical Track) students focus on
practical topics such as judicial reform and social governance, with
requirements that their outcomes possess policy conversion value (e.g.
promoting the unification of trial rules for certain types of cases), forming a
dual-drive framework where “academic PhDs emphasize theory and legal PhDs
emphasize application”, meeting the diverse demands of the nation for high-end
legal talent.
(v) Quality Assurance: Diverse Mechanisms to Strengthen
the Foundation of Practical Teaching
The implementation of
practical teaching requires three supporting mechanisms: faculty, evaluation,
and resources. Concerning faculty development, a mixed team of “in-house
professors + judges/lawyers + international experts” is formed, with practical
mentors required to teach at least 30% of the courses to ensure alignment
between classroom instruction and practical applications; in terms of
evaluation reform, a multi-dimensional assessment system combining “knowledge
mastery, practical innovation, and professional ethics” has been established.
Legal master’s students may choose to submit “case analysis reports” or
“compliance scheme designs” instead of traditional theses, with practical
experts leading the defense process to emphasize the practical orientation of
outcomes; as for resource integration, we have connected judicial big data,
international rules databases, and corporate compliance case repositories.
Leveraging the “Smart Rule of Law Laboratory”, we have achieved comprehensive
virtual simulation-based teaching, enabling students to gain practical
experience in “cloud courts” and “cross-border transaction simulation
platforms”.
Conclusion
From paper to the
cloud, from local roots to global reach, the practical essence of legal
education has always flowed through the pulse of the times. The School of Law
at BIT soars into the dual blue oceans of science and technology law and
international governance with its “two-wing synergy”, and builds a cultivation
hub spanning undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs through its
“three-dimensional collaboration”. This is both a steadfast commitment to the
original mission of “cultivating talent for the Party and the nation” and an
innovative interpretation of the mission of “cultivating both virtue and law,
and uniting knowledge with action”. This exploration has enabled legal
education to transcend the limitations of knowledge transmission, fostering new
opportunities through the collision of intelligent technology and legal
practice, and opening up new horizons through the integration of domestic
experience and international rules.
Looking ahead, we must
adopt a broader perspective to break down barriers between schools and society,
connecting classrooms with courtrooms and laboratories with practical settings.
Every case discussion should serve as a rehearsal for social governance, and
every simulated training session should become the prototype for rule
innovation. Only in this way can we cultivate outstanding talents who
understand technical principles and the essence of rules, are familiar with
international paradigms and uphold the spirit of China—they can build legal
defenses in algorithm governance and tell the story of China’s rule of law in
international negotiations; they can work hard at the grassroots level to
resolve conflicts and disputes, and stand on the global stage to participate in
the reconstruction of rules.
On this new journey,
legal education must take practice as its vessel, ride the wave of the
technological revolution, and hoist the sail of foreign-related rule of law. It
must forge ahead on the path of cultivating talent who are “politically
steadfast, professionally competent, well-versed in international rules, and
proficient in foreign-related legal practice”, providing more “talent who can
research legal theory with a pen, resolve people’s concerns with a bow, and
look ahead to plan for the greater good”. The abundant fruits of
practice-oriented education will become the most solid legal foundation for
advancing China’s modernization.
Acknowledgments:
Supported by the Ministry of Education
Industry–Academia Collaboration Project for Collaborative Education
“Construction of a Virtual Simulation Teaching Platform for Artificial
Intelligence Law Series Courses” (No. 220603145143717)
Bibliographic
references
1. Feng T. Research on the educational objectives
of undergraduate legal education. In: Xia L, Li E, editors. theory of legal education.
Beijing:
China People’s Public
Security University Press;
2006.
2. Xue
J. Reform of legal education in the United Kingdom and its implications:
focusing on the Omrod Report. New Horizons.
2016; (2): 125.
3. Hao
Y. The German legal education system and its implications. Academic Theory. 2012; (5): 204.
4. Bu
Y. The characteristics and causes of German legal commentary culture. Journal of Nanjing University (Philosophy, Humanities, and Social Sciences).
2020; (4): 122–123.
5. Wang
C. The current state of legal education reform and macro-level institutional
design: reflections on the lessons learned from Japan and South Korea and
preliminary discussions on China’s reform. Law.
2016; (8): 61.
6. Langdell
C. Harvard celebration speeches. Law Quarterly Review. 1887; (3): 123–124.
7. Rubin
E. What’s wrong with Langdell’s method, and what to do about it. Vanderbilt Law Review. 2007; (60): 609–650. [Accessed
17 June 2025]. Available in: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol60/iss2/12/
8. Tiscione
KK. How the disappearance of classical rhetoric and the decision to teach law
as a “science” severed theory from practice in legal education. Wake Forest Law Review. 2016; (51): 385–398.
9. Stevens
R. Law school: a century of legal education in the United States: from the
1850s to the 1980s. Li L, translator. Beijing: Peking University Press; 2017.
10. Lande
J. Reforming legal education to prepare law students optimally for real-world
practice. Journal of Dispute Resolution. 2013; (2013): 1–5. [Accessed 20 June 2025]. Available in:
https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1667&context=jdr
11. Dilloff NJ. Law school training: bridging the gap between
legal education and the practice of law. Stanford Law & Policy
Review. 2013;
(24): 425–428. [Accessed 13 June 2025]. Available in: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2288714
12. Zheng
YL. “The Chinese question” and its legal analysis. Tsinghua Law Review.
2016; (2): 7.
13. Zhou
GQ. The practice-oriented approach in criminal law doctrine. China Legal Review.
2022; (4): 120.
14. Ren
C. Cultivating outstanding legal talent in the field of international
engineering under the new liberal arts paradigm. Education and Teaching Forum. 2022; (2): 14.
15. He
MH, et al. The Ideal Professional Legal Education (Revised Edition). Beijing:
Tsinghua University Press; 2016.
16. Zhang
WX. Legal Education. Beijing: China Law Press; 2011.
17. Feng
G. The historical consciousness of transitioning from a legal education
powerhouse to a legal education superpower. Legal Education Research. 2022; (1): 7.
Conflict of interests:
The authors declare
that they have no conflicts of interest.
Authorship contribution:
·
Shouping Li: Conceptualization,
Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing- original draft.
·
Dezhong Guo: Methodology,
Writing - review
& editing.
·
Tianquan Sun: Methodology, Writing
- review & editing.
·
Yi
Pei: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Writing - review & editing.