Global Citizenship Education in Japan: The Kawakami Method

At the Toyo University Campus in the heart of Tokyo

I am currently back in Japan doing another fellowship at the Toyo University thanks to Prof. Kazuhiko Taya, who I worked together with to translate Jan Smits’ Contract Law: A Comparative Introduction last year. It has been three years since I last visited Toyo during my first fellowship here and while it feels like the entire world has completely changed since then, in some ways, it has not at all.

Back then, it was the golden era of “life before COVID-19” and for my son, who was only 3 months old, it was the first time he got to visit Japan. While my wife took care of our very jetlagged baby on unfamiliar soil (for which I will forever be grateful), I got to teach Japanese students (in my somewhat limited Japanese) about common law, Brexit, international arbitration, and my usual banter about global citizenship skills. I even had the time to draft an article for their law journal on “How (Not) to Search for the Truth and (Perhaps) Improve the Human Condition”, which was something quite outside of my usual repartee, where I talked about P-value hacking, influence of money on science, and how lawmakers can easily be duped by – or exploit – bad science.

In short, my time at Toyo not only allowed me to bring my family for their first visit to Japan, but it gave me the courage (and space) to write something outside of my comfort zone. However, what I think has been a very special privilege that has come with the fellowship is the precious time to engage with the Japanese students and how they see themselves in the world. While I am on my own this time around – with my amazing wife back in Maastricht taking care not only of our son, but now our daughter as well on her own (for which I will also be forever grateful) – the opportunity to engage with the Japanese students, to exchange ideas with them, and to perhaps inspire them to be more curious about the world beyond Japan has been the most difficult, yet rewarding challenge of this fellowship.

Unlike many of the adventurous and boisterous students of Maastricht University, the Japanese students tend to be somewhat more conformist and reserved, at least from what I have observed. This has been one of the constants, the thing that has not really changed at all. The Japanese students are extremely hard-working and very organized (thanks to Marie Kondo no doubt), but they tend to be quite shy and it is hard for them to express their opinions openly, especially when surrounded by their peers. The reality is that this is precisely how the (traditional) Japanese education system molded them to be, where they are expected to sit and passively listen to the “great wisdom” being imparted upon them by the gracious and mighty professors. As a result, to poorly paraphrase Brene Brown, many Japanese students do not dare greatly or not greatly enough. Most of them do not dream of going abroad and generally mind themselves on domestic matters, whether in their studies or in their lives.

So within the typical Japanese education framework, there simply is not enough opportunity for the students to think critically or for them to express themselves, but this is precisely what I have been trying to stimulate in my classes during my time here. The Japanese students tend to assess the situation more carefully before ever considering to engage in any classroom dialogue. As the old Japanese adage warns, deru kugi wa utareru (the nail that sticks out gets hammered) and no one wants to be the first nail to be publically slammed down. While there is some prudence in not just shouting out the first thought that percolates into one’s mind and perhaps there is some general reluctance to speak up in any classroom across the world, the Japanese students’ resistance towards taking a risk and speaking up is on a next level. For me, this fellowship is not just about speaking to the Japanese students about European laws, but it is a challenge for me to prod and awkwardly drag them out of their comfort zone in the hopes that they become a more global citizen.

How I approach this situation, and by no means is this a recommendation for all to emulate, is through humor (or at least what I consider to be humor) and self-deprecation. These are my two primary weapons of disarmament that create a safe space for students to come out of their defensive foxholes and to possibly consider opening up in class. While in Maastricht, I tend to insert unsolicited (and unwelcomed) dad jokes into my teachings (much to the chagrin of my students)*, from trial and error, I have learned that translated dad jokes are even more unfunny than its original. So I struggle openly in front of the class like a fish on a cutting board (or as the Japanese say, manaita no ue no koi), trying to over explain the joke. In the process of doing so, not only do I add some levity – if not commiseration – to the otherwise tense situation, but I can demonstrate to the students the fallibility of the person standing in front of them. I display that it is ok to try something even if it doesn’t work. That the teachers are – like them – just a flawed human being. Sure, perhaps with more information and experience, but we all learn, adjust, and (hopefully) move on in the same way.

Perhaps I am glamorizing my methods too much, but even in this seemingly stupid gesture of telling badly translated dad jokes, there is a purpose. While all of my failures are not so calculated, every action is indeed in furtherance of creating that space where the students can come out and learn, which I submit is a necessary foundation – a prerequisite – before truly meaningful and lasting education can take place.

Student feedback from my courses at Toyo

Even within my short time here, I feel that I have been somewhat successful in getting students to open up and to share how they think about certain things. I believe (or perhaps I would like to believe) that my unorthodox method is in some part what nudged the students who used to sit passively in the back of the classroom to sit more up front and to take part in our discussions, not just about the law, but about going abroad and being curious about what their role in this world can be. It is not as if these students didn’t have their own ambitions or curiosities, interests and passions, worries about the uncertain furture because they all had them, but just locked up behind the armor of conformity and insecurity. This comes as a result of an education system in which they have dwelled in for so long, not having permitted, nor enabled them to discuss and grapple with these matters in class and that is not just on the teachers, but on the entire educational culture in Japan.

I have another week of teaching and writing here before I finally get to return home to Maastricht to my incredible (and likely exhausted) wife and two adorable kids (who, in my absence, have grown up so fast, if not too much). But whilst I am still here, I plan on making the most of my time to try and inspire more global citizens to emerge out of Japan, which is something I feel that there is a great shortage of. In the process of doing so, I am also benefitting from experiencing new challenges and hearing new insights. There is still a lot being processed in my head – much like this essay – with ideas and thoughts just scattered around all over the place lacking coherence. However, through this experience, I hope to adapt and evolve in some way and I wish for the same with the students that I encounter here.

* For example, “Did you hear about the guy who sued the airline company after they lost his luggage? Sadly, he lost his case.”

“Life is More Imporant than Science”: A Conversation with Martin Paul

On 9 December, the Maastricht Young Academy had the pleasure of hosting Prof. dr. Martin Paul, our former President and the current Rector/CEO of Ruhr-Universität Bochum, to our Growing Up in Science Series at the Tapijn Brasserie. While the organization of the event proved to be rather chaotic (e.g. the venue was double-booked and the supposed moderator left for Japan prior to actually moderating the event), Martin Paul was an absolute delight. He shared the ups and downs of his tenured career to a group of engaged audience members with his unique warmth and charm. From the events during his childhood that made him into the academic/leader that he is today, to his time in the United States (where he met his wife), Martin was incredibly generous in revealing the various struggles that he faced.

With an abundance of humility and a handful of vulnerablity, he admitted that he is a workaholic who is/was addicted to work and while he has achieved a lot, there were serious sacrifices that had to be made in order to make that possible. He described his early career as a “rat race” (especially during his fellowship at Harvard) and even with his array of successes, he still noted that academia can feel like a “golden cage”. 

To immune ourselves from falling into similar traps, Martin advised the following: “Don’t let the system take you over. Don’t let the system run you.” He continued that, in the end, “you have to listen to your inner voice and make a choice.” What struck me the most was when he stated that while doing so “is not without its risks, life is more imporant than science.”

Aside from the many invaluable advice that he offered, what became abundantly clear from his talk was that although he has left his position in Maastricht, his love and affection for our community has not waned one bit. At one point, he even noted that “Maastricht is a paradise!”. However, he also offered another prudent advice, which was that “if everything you think you can do has been done, you have to look for new challenges” and he expressed that he has done all that he can (and probably even more) for Maastricht. He was also quick to give praise to the current leadership of the university and reassured us that he has left the university in very good hands.

In Bochum, he is now focused on bringing some of the positive Maastricht vibe to an otherwise rigid and hierarchical German academic culture. We wish Martin all the luck with his new challenges and thank him from the bottom of our hearts for sharing his precious time and insights with us. Once again, I am so very sorry Martin for my poor event planning and ditching my moderating duties last minute. A very special thank you also to Aurore Lyon for wonderfully filling in the moderating role and Lia Hruby for her hard work behind the scenes. Maybe Maastricht is indeed a “paradise” after all, occupied by many kind and caring souls.   

(Don’t) Boycott the 2022 World Cup!!

The 2022 World Cup in Qatar starts today with somewhat muted and murky fanfare. The event has already garnered an abundance of critiques for pairing the most prestigious football competition in the world with gross transgressions of human rights and alarming flippancy towards sustainability. But the lingering question with the first match between Qatar and Ecuador set to kick off in a few hours is, will you be watching these games?!

Perhaps we could all find some common ground in agreeing that an autocratic regime that is complicit in – or worse – that perpetuates modern slavery and infringes upon LGBTQ+ rights should not have been awarded the privilege to host such a prestigious global sporting event (although Beijing or Sochi hosting recent Olympics may suggest that our common ground may be much narrower than one would hope for). Add to these considerations, the ecological concerns that come with constructing stadiums in the middle of the desert for the sole purpose of hosting these games, not to mention the costs associated with air-conditioning these stadiums to accommodate players and fans that fly into Qatar from all over the world. This waste seems especially callous especially given that the rest of the world is desperately attempting to cope with sky-rocketing energy costs and staggering inflation as the Russian aggression into Ukraine rage on. In short, there are red flags (or cards if you’re into sport puns) popping up everywhere.

Even for the most avid football enthusiasts, watching these games must come with some small element of guilt or shame as if we are watching something obscene or forbidden. Some have  alleged that the so-called beautiful game has been (further) tainted by the game being hosted in Qatar. As the legendary Gary Lineker, who will be covering this World Cup for the BBC, put it: “I’m a little queasy about it. The human rights, the deaths building the stadiums, the homophobia in their laws, none of it sits right.”

On the other hand, there is something to be said for a Middle Eastern country hosting this global event for the first time. Advocates of Qatar, including the likes of the current FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, have alleged Islamophobia at the root of these critiques. To his point, other World Cups have all been mired in some controversy, one way or another. The last World Cup was hosted in Russia, a decision that has not aged well. There were riots and protests when Brazil hosted the Cup because the Brazilian people believed that their government should have invested the money that went to hosting the games into their crumbling public sector. There were allegations of bribery and corruption when South Africa – and even Germany – won their bids to host their respective World Cups. The 1978 World Cup in Argentina particularly left a bitter aftertaste – not just because the Dutch lost in the finals to Argentina – but because Argentina was under an authoritarian military junta at the time. Even back then, there were critiques that allowing Argentina to host that World Cup would have somehow legitimized the authoritarian regime in a practice that we have now termed “sports washing”. Sports washing is a sub-category of moral cleansing where entities with questionable reputation attempt to legitimize their behaviors or reputation through hosting or sponsoring of popular sports events or teams (e.g. state-owned Qatari Airways sponsoring PSG, Bayern Munich, AS Roma, etc.).

So is Qatar really any different from previous hosts? And here, I would argue that it is – and not because of Islamophobia – but because of the sheer number of problems represented by Qatar in combination with the growing social consciousness of the consumers. It is not just the allegations of corruption and ill-gotten gains by the Qataris and FIFA, but the aforementioned social and ecological reasons that make this World Cup feel particularly dirty, so much so that even the former-President of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, admitted that the selection of Qatar was a mistake.

Add to these issues, the less serious – but nevertheless important – concerns of alcoholic beverages not being sold around the venues (or at exorbitant prices when they are sold) or the fact that the event had to be moved from the summer to the winter in light of the extreme heat conditions in Qatar, which has meant that many injured players will not have the time to recover from their injuries to play in this World Cup. Celebrated players like Karim Benzema, Paul Pogba, Sadio Mane, Marco Reus, Diogo Jota, and to my personal disappointment, Yuta Nakayama, will all be missing the World Cup due to injuries that they may have otherwise recovered from had this World Cup not been in the middle of their regular season with their clubs.

Boycotting this World Cup isn’t just about standing up for our values or preserving our clean conscience. A well-organized boycott could potentially contribute to FIFA implementing meaningful changes and incentivizing their sponsors to be more socially responsible. For example, a sizeable percentage of the revenue that the World Cup will generate – an estimated €6 billion – will come from an estimated 3 billion consumers that tune into watch the games. A large enough group of people boycotting the games could mean that there will be less money being put into the hands of FIFA, who created this dilemma in the first place. A systematic boycott leading to the reduction of FIFA’s revenues (which has grown with each tournament at least since Korea and Japan hosted it in 2002) may send a strong message that they must do better and urge sponsors to walk away from dealing with FIFA all together.

Having listed an assortment of reasons why viewers should tune away from this World Cup, I will now expose myself to be a flaming hypocrite, who will be watching and cheering on the Blue Samurais of Japan take on Germany, Spain, and Costa Rica in the group stages. I have tried validating my hypocrisy with various justifications, but mostly with limited success because the reason why I want to watch the games simply comes down to the unavoidable fact that I just like watching football (some would say it’s an addiction of sorts, but I digress): First, this will be the first time that I will get to watch the World Cup with my son and daughter in tow, which unbeknownst to them (who may not even be interested in watching football) will have special meaning to me.

Second, I think that the World Cup can be a platform for great heroics, not just in terms of football, but in terms of social justice. I hope to witness some iconic gesture of courage akin to Jesse Owens winning 4 Olympic gold medals in the 1936 Berlin Olympics (dubbed the Nazi Olympics presided over by Hitler himself) or Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising their fists in defiance during the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. I have already seen glimpses of player activism in Qatar, form the Australian team making a video calling out Qatar or the Danish teams wearing an all black protest kit, which I’ve watched with admiration. By watching the World Cup, I am not just hoping to watch great football drama unfold, but I will also be hoping to witness something even more epic (e.g. a passionate embrace and a kiss between a player and their same-sex partner, who comes out during this World Cup in a brave display of courage and love!?)

Third, I think everyone has the right to find out for themselves their own values and what they are comfortable (or not comfortable) doing. When it comes to watching this World Cup (or not), I don’t think it is a clear black and white issue that some make it out to be. For example, even for those of us who decide to watch the games, there are options to carry out a semi-boycott (e.g. you can watch the games with a group of people in a pub thus reducing the number of viewership, or – and I am not really advocating for this – but you can also illegally stream the games).

In the end, perhaps the most important question should not have been whether we boycott this World Cup or not, but whether we can stay tuned to the instances of labor exploitation or the persecution of the LGBTQ community and to speak up against them even after the tournament has ended and the stadium lights have been turned off for good. I would love to see the international spotlight continue to shine bright and expose human rights violations or blatant disregard for the climate crisis, not just in Qatar or surrounding the World Cup, but wherever there are transgressions all over the world, at all times. But then again, I am just a flaming hypocrite after all, so what do I know?

Growing Up in Science with Martin Paul

Please scan the QR code to register or follow the link.

The Maastricht Young Academy will be hosting another Growing Up in Science event, this time with a very special guest, Prof. dr. Martin Paul. Not only was Martin the former President of our little university, but he has been a wonderful mentor who was always quick and generous to share his wisdom and insight even to people at the bottom of the food chain (e.g. me). I am very much looking forward to hearing his stories and asking him uncomfortable questions by abusing my position as the moderator for this event.* Come one, come all as there will be free drinks and snacks (in addition to Martin of course).

*Please note that this event is taking place at a slightly different date and time than usual (we usually host these on Thursdays at 4pm). This is so that people can still go check out the World Cup Quarter-Final match starting at 4pm right after the event (that is of course, if you are not boycotting the Qatar World Cup).

"Education is that which remains, if one has forgotten everything he learned in school."*

Since April, I have been working together with the wonderful Maria Vatista (the Coordinator for Student Led Initiatives at the United World College here in Maastricht), in an effort to link up the high school students there with some of the UM students, staff, and our various initiatives. After hosting a few events based around the UM, I finally had the opportunity to visit UWC during their Asian Cultural Week. Being there not only gave me flashbacks to my high school days at Andover, but it was absolutely delightful to meet some of the students and to sit in on classes that they were teaching. I felt rejuvenated to see so much energy and positivity from the students supporting and cheering on their fellow students (during class and especially during the talent show). I was also in awe of just how much the staff there really invested their time and effort into fostering the growth and development of these lucky students.

Albert Einstein wrote in his essay, On Education (1936), that “education is that which remains, if one has forgotten everything he learned in school.” I am almost certain that I have forgotten absolutely everything that I learned back in high school and was not exactly sure what had remained. However, the students and the staff at UWC reminded me that so long as we are kind and civil to one another, we can create a wonderfully fun and supportive learning environment driven by curiosity and collaboration, rather than by competition or fear (or promises of promotion for the staff). So in short, I am extremely grateful to Maria, UWC, and the continued opportunities for me to keep working with them on a variety of upcoming initiatives! If anyone is also interested in joining in on the fun, please give me a shout!

* Trigger warning for the non-inclusive language. Just leaving the quote from 1936 here as is.

Another Successful UM Learning & Innovation Annual Conference!!

UM Annual Conference on L&I held on 19 October 2022

Last week, the Learning and Innovation Taskforce of Maastricht University hosted our Annual Conference with a keynote from Prof. dr. Nienke van Atteveldt on neurocognitive interplay between motivation, learning behavior, and achievement. In addition to the fascinating keynote, we also hosted a series of workshops and pitches on topics such as creativity and learning “in the wild”. The conference once again created a wonderful opportunity for people to engage with fellow education enthusiasts from around our university and to pick up some best practices along the way. If there was a point of improvement, however, I would wish for more folks from the law faculty to be in attendance, but we’ll work on that for next year’s conference!

Moderating Glaw-Net Seminar with Antoine Duval!

Last week, I had the chance to read a draft paper by Antoine Duval and moderate (together with Victoria Sadaf Azizi) his presenation about John Ruggie, double movements, and re-assembling the private and the public through human rights due diligence for GLaw-Net Maastricht. It's not very often that you come out of these lunch hour meetings feeling inspired and stimulated, but I did. Happy to have had the opportunity to engage with such an interesting, blue flame thinker.

UM Team Wins Best Negotiation Strategy for the IBA-VIAC CDRC 2022 Competition!!

The UM Team (consisting of Joan Duhaylungsod, Max Tipp-McKnight and Wanyan Pan Jiang) won the Best Negotiation Strategy Award for the CDRC Mediation & Negotiation Competition - organized with the International Bar Association and the Vienna International Arbitral Centre - that took place back in July.

For whatever it is worth, I think it is interesting to note that while I was officially the “coach” of this team, I offered the team absolutely zero substantive guidance and possibly even less help on non-substantive matters. I note this - not to highlight my level of gross incompetence as a coach - but because I strongly believe that their accomplishment showcases the capabilities of our wonderful students, their devotion and pursuit to teach themselves (in the true spirit of PBL), and the level of independence to participate in a competition without any support from the staff (aside from the law faculty funding the registration fee, for which we are all very grateful for).

As a special treat for their fine accomplishment, the students were invited to attend the Netherlands Arbitration Institute’s General Meeting last week, where they had the chance to watch Brian King’s keynote at the Peace Palace in the Hague. A very special thank you to Bas van Zelst for arranging this!! Although Wanyan could not attend the event (and Guillaume Libbrecht, who participated in the UM v. Texas A&M Negotiation Event, got to go in her place), Wanyan will hopefully find some comfort in the fact that Bas and I assessed her Master’s Theis on implementing AI for decision-making in International Commercial Arbitration very highly!

All in all, this experience has reiterated my belief that while I think it is important to take the time to teach our students and to guide their development in a (somewhat) structured manner, it may equally be important to give - especially to our talented and motivated students - the space and the freedom to guide their own learning.

3rd Year UM Global Studies Students Kick Off the New Acadmic Year with a Bang: The (Mock) Trial of Franz Schlegelberger

Murder! War crimes! Crimes against humanity and Nazis!

The 3rd year Global Studies students kicked off the new academic year with a mock trial of Franz Schlegelberger, the German Justice Minister during the Third Reich. Coincidentally, Marieke and I will be travelling with these students to Cyprus in October/November to study the Cyprus conflict. The UM Global Studies Bachelors Programme is not without its flaws, but we sure do get around to doing cool things!!

Passion and Curiosity for Interdisciplinarity Alive and Well at UM

Studio Europa Maastricht’s Young Researchers Network and Maastricht Young Academy hosted a joint event to promote interdisciplinary problem-solving through enhanced interfaculty collaborations at the UM. Although we lost a handful of the participants due to inclement weather and an assortment of ailments, the brave participates who soldiered on arrived at Brasserie Tapijn ready to listen, learn, and engage, for which we are very grateful for.

A very special thanks to Studio Europa Maastricht for funding the drinks and snacks and a heartfelt thank you to my comrades in arms who organized this event with me: Kai Heidemann, Rok Hrzic, Karin van Leeuwen, Diogo Sampaio Lima, Miriam Urlings, Giulia Piccillo, Amir Ebrahimi Fard, Donna Yates, and Pablo del Hierro!