Introduction:

DIFFERENT LEGAL TRADITIONS

Even though England had many profound cultural ties to the rest of Europe in the Middle Ages,
its legal tradition developed differently from that of the continent for a number of historical
reasons, and one of the most fundamental ways in which they diverged was in the
establishment of judicial decisions as the basis of common law and legislative decisions as the
basis of civil law.

Most nations today follow one of these two major legal traditions: common law or civil law.
Civil law may be defined as that legal tradition which has its origin in Roman law, as codified in
the Corpus Juris Civilis (the Justinian Code): the law applicable to all Roman citizens. It
subsequently developed in continental Europe and was applied in the colonies of European
imperial powers such as Spain and Portugal. The common law tradition emerged in England
during the Middle Ages, specially from the 11 th century onwards, and was applied within British
colonies across continents. Common law is the foundation of private law not only for England,
Wales and Ireland, but also in most of the US states, nine Canadian provinces, and in most
former colonies of the British Empire (many of which now form part of the Commonwealth of
Nations). Interestingly enough, the law in Scotland is different from the law of the rest of the
United Kingdom. It is a mixed legal system, influenced by both civil and common law and has
characteristics of both approaches. Similarly, in the United States, civil law is also present in
some states. A prominent example is Louisiana, where state law is based on civil law as a result
of Louisiana’s history as a French and Spanish territory prior to its purchase from France in
1803. Many of the southwestern states reflect traces of civil law influence in their state
constitutions and codes from their early legal heritage as territories of colonial Spain and
Mexico. Finally, Civil law was also adopted in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by
countries formerly possessing distinctive legal traditions, such as Russia and Japan, which
sought to reform their legal systems in order to gain economic and political power comparable
to that of Western European nation-states.

Civil law is highly systematized and structured, and relies on declarations of broad, general
principles. Civil Law is codified. Countries with civil law systems have comprehensive,
continuously updated legal codes that specify all matters capable of being brought before a
court, the applicable procedure, and the appropriate punishment for each offense. The judge’s
role is to establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of the applicable code.
Though the judge often brings the formal charges, investigates the matter, and decides on the
case, he or she works within a framework established by a comprehensive, codified set of laws.
The judge’s decision is consequently less crucial in shaping civil law than the decisions of
legislators and legal scholars who draft and interpret the codes.
Common law is generally uncodified. This means that there is no comprehensive compilation
of legal rules and statutes. A major difference between common-law and civil-law systems is
the heavy reliance on case law in common-law systems. Thus, while common law does rely on
some scattered statutes, it is largely based on precedent, meaning the judicial decisions that
have already been made in similar cases. These precedents are maintained over time through
the records of the courts as well as historically documented in collections of case law known as
yearbooks and reports. The precedents to be applied in the decision of each new case are
determined by the presiding judge. As a result, judges have an enormous role in shaping
American and British law. Common law functions as an adversarial system, a contest between
two opposing parties before a judge who moderates. A jury of ordinary people without legal
training decides on the facts of the case. The judge then determines the appropriate sentence
based on the jury’s verdict. Judicial interpretation of statute law is binding until challenged by
a higher court. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, lower courts are compelled to follow
decisions rendered in higher courts. Thus, precedent is at the core of common-law legal
systems. If there is no previous case law on the statute, the court will place its own
interpretation on the statute.

Common-law and civil-law legal traditions share similar social objectives: individualism,
liberalism and personal rights. Because of this functional similarity, they are often referred to
as the Western law family. Although codified law (mainly in the form of statutes) is paramount
in both legal traditions, it differs in its importance. In civil-law jurisdictions, priority is given to
enacted law, while in the common-law tradition, precedent is the major source of law.

VOCABULARY

Find words in the text that mean the same as the underlined words below:

1. Although civil law originated in Roman law, it was later developed around the world, mainly
in continental Europe.

2. The common law concept of stare decisis forces lower courts to accept decisions of the
higher courts.

3. In accordance with the principle of stare decisis, decisions made in higher courts become
obligatory.

4. In both common law and civil law alike, statutes are of greatest importance, even though
their functions are different.