For purposes of this final exam question, consider the following hypothetical scenario:
    By the middle of 2021, millions of people around the world had come to the conclusion that it was more important than ever to establish common legal institutions binding upon the entire global community.  Not only has economic life become more and more globalized, through the explosion of world trade in the last thirty years, but pressing shared problems like climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic have highlighted the importance of close international cooperation.  Indeed, many people have dared to think the once-unthinkable—that one common system of law should govern everyone on the planet.
    Believing that this project might be worth a try, all of the nations of the world (or nearly allwe have not heard from North Korea yet) have decided to name a delegation consisting of the people most knowledgeable about their own law and legal system, and send that delegation to an international conference.  They would like this conference to be held on the campus of Brandeis University in September of this year.  The task of this conference will be to consider the strengths and weaknesses of various rules, as they exist in different countries around the world, and then produce one set of laws, both criminal and civil, to be binding upon all people in all countries.  This new, common set of laws will be called the International Framework.
    Of course, no nation would have to accept this new set of laws.  Every country would have the option of adopting the International Framework or rejecting it, either through action by national assemblies, or perhaps by popular referenda, depending on how individual nations want to decide the question. 
    But that is not your concern.  Your job is to decide whether it is a good idea for this conference to meet at all. 
    In other words, assuming that everyone agreed to the International Framework, would it be desirable in the first place to have a common set of laws in every state throughout the world?  This would mean, of course, that there would no longer be any such thing as Comparative Law, as all laws in every country would be the same.  Would that result be good, or would this be something that ought to be opposed?
    President Leibowitz does not want to agree to host this conference unless it promises good things for the world, and that is why he has asked your opinion about the value of the International Framework idea.  Thus, your task is to write an essay either supporting, or opposing, that idea.  In crafting your answer, you should feel free to use any idea or topic or case that we have discussed at any point in the semester.  While everything is fair game, some topics that might help you write your responses include Legal Transplants, Diffusion and Convergence of Law, Constitutional Courts, the idea of micro-legal systems, and anything you deem important about Common Law, Civil Law, and the other legal traditions we have (sometimes all too briefly) examined.  Of course, you are not expected to incorporate ALL those topics, or anywhere close to all of them—just pick a limited selection of topics that you think will best support your answers.
    There is no page limit to this exam, but I would think that 5-7 double spaced pages should be a reasonable estimate.  You do not need to include a counter-argument.