Established in 1933, Law and Contemporary Problems is Duke Law School's oldest journal. During the first 40 years of publication, the quarterly journal was entirely edited and managed by faculty. In the 1970's a student editorial board was added, although the journal continues to enjoy substantial faculty input. Distinctive in format and content, each issue is devoted to papers on a particular topic of contemporary interest. Usually the topics reflect an interdisciplinary perspective with contributions by lawyers, economists, social scientists, scholars in other disciplines, and public officials. The journal occasionally publishes student notes related to past symposia. Subscribers include general university libraries, government agencies, and foreign educational institutions, as well as the more traditional law libraries and law firms. Law and Contemporary Problems is monitored by a general editor and a faculty advisory committee.
Duke Law School was established as a graduate and professional school in 1930. Its mission is to prepare students for responsible and productive lives in the legal profession. As a community of scholars, the Law School also provides leadership at the national and international levels in efforts to improve the law and legal institutions through teaching, research, and other forms of public service. Although Duke University is young by comparison to other major American universities, its academic programs and professional schools together have attained an international stature and a reputation for quality and innovation that few universities can match. Among the Law School's unique strengths are an extensive network of interdisciplinary collaboration across the Duke campus and an emphasis in teaching and research initiatives addressing global and international issues.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
Law and Contemporary Problems
© 2001 Duke University School of Law