<![CDATA[This article examines the formulation of legal education for prospective judges through a comparative analysis of the Common Law and Civil Law traditions. The study draws institutional insights from Harvard Law School and Utrecht University School of Law as representative models of two major paradigms of global legal education. Using a library research approach with a juridical-comparative orientation, the research analyzes contemporary academic literature and studies on judicial education to explore epistemological and methodological differences in the formation of judges. The findings indicate that the Common Law tradition emphasizes case-based learning, Socratic dialogue, and experiential approaches that develop argumentative and pragmatic reasoning skills. In contrast, the Civil Law tradition prioritizes doctrinal analysis grounded in legal codification and the integration of academic education with professional judicial training to ensure interpretative consistency and legal certainty. Rather than demonstrating the superiority of one system, these differences highlight the importance of an integrative model of judicial education. The study argues that combining case-based reasoning with doctrinal coherence can provide the foundation for a hybrid judicial education model that supports both justice and legal certainty in contemporary judicial systems. Artikel ini menganalisis formulasi pendidikan hukum bagi calon hakim melalui kajian komparatif antara tradisi Common Law dan Civil Law. Kajian ini mengambil pelajaran institusional dari Harvard Law School dan Utrecht University School of Law sebagai representasi dua paradigma utama pendidikan hukum global. Penelitian menggunakan pendekatan library research dengan karakter yuridis-komparatif melalui analisis literatur akademik mutakhir dan studi tentang pendidikan yudisial untuk menelaah perbedaan epistemologis dan metodologis dalam pembentukan hakim. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa tradisi Common Law menekankan pembelajaran berbasis kasus melalui case method, Socratic dialogue, dan pendekatan berbasis pengalaman yang membentuk kemampuan argumentatif dan penalaran pragmatis. Sebaliknya, tradisi Civil Law lebih menekankan pendekatan doktrinal berbasis kodifikasi hukum serta integrasi pendidikan akademik dengan pelatihan profesi yudisial guna menjaga konsistensi interpretasi dan kepastian hukum. Perbedaan tersebut menunjukkan pentingnya model pendidikan hakim yang bersifat integratif. Penelitian ini menegaskan bahwa sintesis antara case-based reasoning dan doctrinal coherence dapat menjadi dasar bagi model pendidikan hakim hibrid yang mampu mendukung keadilan sekaligus kepastian hukum dalam sistem peradilan modern.]]>
