What does the ' coming together'of legal systems mean? How does convergence take place? This question can be answered from two perspectives: top-down and bottom-up. Top-down convergence occurs as the result of the work done by groups of experts working on common principles, such as the famous(Lando) Principles of European Contract Law, or groups of experts who attempt to draft a European Civil Code (4) These efforts are based on comparative research aimed at finding common ground within the various legal systems. If this common ground cannot be found, the search is for the better rule. The question what is meant by the ' coming together of legal systems can al so be answered from a bottom-up perspective. This perspective was chosen by the Trento Common Core project(aimed at finding the common core of private law in Europe) and in the Leuven /maastricht lus commune casebook series. these casebooks are intended to provide those who teach in a comparative law programme, such as the European Law School in Maastricht and now the Hanse Law School programme in Bremen, Groningen and Oldenburg with a structured source book in a particular area of the law. So far, the volumes on tort law and contract law have been published. Other volumes are in preparation, including a volume on property law. (5)In his article 'lus Commune Casebooks for the Common Law of Euro Presentation, Progress, Rationale, Pierre Larouche offers an insight into some of the background problems which the drafters of the casebook on tort law faced. (6) He discusses how the material was structured and selected, how space constraints were dealt with, why English was chosen as the language of the casebooks and the problems this creates in regard to translations of nati legal terminology and why the casebooks take a functional approach. He ends his article making some remarks concerning the role these casebooks may play in legal education Clearly, it is impossible to go into every detail of each system; instead, the materials and the notes must concentrate on the guiding principles and the policy choices that underlie each legal system These constraints may actually prove to be a blessing. Indeed, it is submitted, the future of legal education may well lie in moving away from teaching the rules of law as they stand, towards teaching the principle and policy framework behind the law, so that students are better prepared to work in a dynamic and multi-system environment. (7) This approach towards teaching the principle and policy framework behind the law, a method well known to law teachers in the United States, &)of course does not mean that students are no longer required to study the statutory law and case law of relevant major legal systems. Students still have to understand basic conceptual distinctions and must know important statutory(code) provisions and leading cases. Their training, however, is also aimed at understanding common thought patterns and- it seems almost paradoxical, but in fact it is not-the relativity of legal thinking within a particular legal system. National differences of legal technique might hide underlying common principles and policies. The use of this 'principle and policy' approach is not limited to the academic world; it has proven to be highly relevant for the development of the law in legal practice. A recent and striking example is a decision by the House of lords in the case of Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (9) This is a case about questions of causation in tort law. It is a very lengthy, but very well-argued decision, which in my view every teacher of comparative law should readWhat does the 'coming together' of legal systems mean? How does convergence take place? This question can be answered from two perspectives: top-down and bottom-up. Top-down convergence occurs as the result of the work done by groups of experts working on common principles, such as the famous (Lando) Principles of European Contract Law, or groups of experts who attempt to draft a European Civil Code.(4) These efforts are based on comparative research aimed at finding common ground within the various legal systems. If this common ground cannot be found, the search is for the 'better rule'. The question what is meant by the 'coming together' of legal systems can also be answered from a bottom-up perspective. This perspective was chosen by the Trento Common Core project (aimed at finding the common core of private law in Europe) and in the Leuven/Maastricht Ius Commune casebook series. These casebooks are intended to provide those who teach in a comparative law programme, such as the European Law School in Maastricht and now the Hanse Law School programme in Bremen, Groningen and Oldenburg, with a structured source book in a particular area of the law. So far, the volumes on tort law and contract law have been published. Other volumes are in preparation, including a volume on property law.(5) In his article 'Ius Commune Casebooks for the Common Law of Europe: Presentation, Progress, Rationale', Pierre Larouche offers an insight into some of the background problems which the drafters of the casebook on tort law faced.(6) He discusses how the material was structured and selected, how space constraints were dealt with, why English was chosen as the language of the casebooks and the problems this creates in regard to translations of national legal terminology and why the casebooks take a functional approach. He ends his article by making some remarks concerning the role these casebooks may play in legal education: Clearly, it is impossible to go into every detail of each system; instead, the materials and the notes must concentrate on the guiding principles and the policy choices that underlie each legal system. These constraints may actually prove to be a blessing. Indeed, it is submitted, the future of legal education may well lie in moving away from teaching the rules of law as they stand, towards teaching the principle and policy framework behind the law, so that students are better prepared to work in a dynamic and multi-system environment.(7) This approach towards teaching the principle and policy framework behind the law, a method well known to law teachers in the United States,(8) of course does not mean that students are no longer required to study the statutory law and case law of relevant major legal systems. Students still have to understand basic conceptual distinctions and must know important statutory (code) provisions and leading cases. Their training, however, is also aimed at understanding common thought patterns and - it seems almost paradoxical, but in fact it is not - the relativity of legal thinking within a particular legal system. National differences of legal technique might hide underlying common principles and policies. The use of this 'principle and policy' approach is not limited to the academic world; it has proven to be highly relevant for the development of the law in legal practice. A recent and striking example is a decision by the House of Lords in the case of Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.(9) This is a case about questions of causation in tort law. It is a very lengthy, but very well-argued decision, which in my view every teacher of comparative law should read