The Experiences of Civil Lawyers When Studying the Common Law

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Margaret Fordham

AbstractThis article examines the issues experienced by civil lawyers when studying the common law. It considers the extent of the differences between common law and civil law legal systems, examines the challenges which students from civil law jurisdictions face when first exposed to the common law, analyses the various ways in which these challenges may be met, and summarises civilians’ overall impressions of the common law.

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Nader Ghanbari ◽  
Hassan Mohseni ◽  
Dawood Nassiran

Comparing the legal systems is a specific method in which due to its important function is considered as a separate branch in law. None of the branches in law can place its knowledge merely on ideas and findings within the national borders. Several basic objections have been given regarding the definition and purpose of comparative study in civil procedure. In addition there are specific problems regarding studying practically the similar systems in a legal system like differences in purpose, definition and concept. In different legal systems like civil law and common law systems in which there is a divergence, even the judicial system`s organs and judges` appointment and judicial formalism are different, which add to the problems of the comparative study. Reviewing these differences could lead to a better understanding of these legal systems and recognizing the common principles in making use of each other`s findings considering these differences and indicate the obstacles of comparative study in this regard.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azamat Omarov ◽  
Asylbek Kultasov ◽  
Kanat Abdilov

The article discusses the features of civil law in different countries. The authors studied the origins of the modern tradition of civil law, comparing the legal systems of two European countries. One of the traditional classifications of duties in civil law is analyzed, the conclusion is made about the inappropriateness of the allocation of personal and universal duties. In comparative law, there are many situations where the same legal term has different meanings, or where different legal terms have same legal effect. This confusion most often occurs when civil lawyers have to deal with common law, or vice versa, when common law lawyers deal with civil law issues. While there are many issues which are dealt with in the same way by the civil law and common law systems, there remain also significant differences between these two legal systems related to legal structure, classification, fundamental concepts, terminology, etc. As lawyers know, legal systems in countries around the world generally fall into one of two main categories: common law systems and civil law systems. There are roughly 150 countries that have what can be described as primarily civil law systems, whereas there are about 80 common law countries. The main difference between the two systems is that in common law countries, case law – in the form of published judicial opinions – is of primary importance, whereas in civil law systems, codified statutes predominate.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 108-116
Author(s):  
K.A. USACHEVA

The extent to which the contract law traditions in the common law systems really differs from those in the civil law ones is discussed in the article. Today, the existence of such differences is difficult to reject, but their modern description looks more like rough cartoon sketches, which do not take into account lots of additional factors. The article proposes considering this matter more carefully.


2021 ◽  
pp. 339-366
Author(s):  
Giacinto della Cananea

This chapter explores the common and distinctive elements that emerge from the comparative analysis of legal systems, in terms of commonality and diversity in administrative law. It begins by outlining the main institutional features of the legal systems selected for the comparison, with an initial focus on the idea of a 'divide' between civil law and common law. The two important features of the legal systems examined in this book include judicial independence and judicial specialization. The chapter then discusses the procedural requirements at the heart of the factual analysis. It concludes by reflecting on the relevance and significance of this analysis for the general enquiry concerning the common core of European administrative laws.


Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eltjo Schrage

Within both the civil law and the common law (as well as in mixed legal systems), there are means of acquiring and losing rights, or of freeing ourselves from obligations with the passage of time. The reason for this is at least twofold: on the one hand, for a claimant, a dispossessed owner or a creditor, limitation and prescription provide stimuli for bringing the action; on the other, this sanction upon the negligence of the claimant implies in many cases a windfall for the defendant. If a creditor is negligent in protecting his assets, the law at a certain stage no longer protects him or her. As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said aptly some 100 years ago: “Sometimes it is said that, if a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example”.


2010 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mashood A. Baderin

There is today a general perception that the traditional differences between the Common Law and Civil Law systems have shrunk greatly and that both, being secular “Western” systems, should be able to accommodate one another and impact on one another easily and positively. It is the Shar_‘ah system, being based on divine law, that is often perceived as being radically different and possibly not having anything in common with either the Common Law or the Civil Law systems respectively. Our analysis of administration of justice in this paper however demonstrates that the jurisprudence of the three legal systems have evolved along similar lines and that under each of the systems the relevant theories and principles of administration of justice have been  influenced by reasonableness and expediency which gives room for the necessary flexibility to ensure the realisation of substantive justice under each one of the three legal systems, if there is the political and judicial will to do so on the part of the ruling authority, the judiciary and other relevant institutions of administration of justice respectively. In view of the continuing interaction between the three legal systems in different countries of the world today, there is a need to continue promoting a better understanding of the systems to enhance an effective administration of justice across the legal systems globally.


Author(s):  
Jacques Du Plessis

Legal systems generally are ‘mixed’ in the sense that they have been influenced by a variety of other systems. However, this label traditionally is only attached to those systems which represent a mix between the common law and the civilian tradition. This article focuses on what studies of mixed legal systems reveal about the broader comparative themes of the classification of legal systems, whether and how borrowing can take place, the quality of the law to which borrowing gives rise, the connection between civil law and the common law in the European context, and the role which language can play in comparative analysis and legal development.


1995 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brice Dickson

This article examines a variety of legal systems with a view to assessing the role currently played within each of them by the principle of unjust enrichment. By focusing on the characteristic features of unjust enrichment claims it seeks to demonstrate that, although there are significant differences between the ways in which different countries handle such claims, there is also much that those systems have in common. While under the common law the principle of unjust enrichment has endured a long struggle for recognition, in civil law systems it has been acknowledged for centuries. This may be because in civil law countries the principle has been expected to play only a residual, and therefore non-threatening, role in the law of obligations while in common law countries it has been called upon, if at all, to serve as the basis for the whole of the law of restitution. We should not assume, however, that all common law systems share one set of characteristics while all civil law systems share another. In some respects there is more in common between systems drawn from each category than there is between systems drawn from the same category. Mixed legal systems, as one might expect, tend to display characteristics drawn from both.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Maria Martins Silva Stancati

<p>Este artigo pretende explorar a temática da função do Notário na comparação entre o Sistema de Notariado Norte-Americano e o Sistema de Notariado Brasileiro. Eles surgem, no contexto histórico da mesma forma, mas num dado momento se separam quando passa a aparecer os sistemas jurídicos diferentes de acordo com cada cultura, assim, surgem o Civil Law com base em provas documental e o Common Law com base no testemunho oral. Dessa diferença entre documento e testemunho que se desenvolve as atribuições da função notarial.</p><p>This article will explore the theme of the notary's role in the comparison of the Notaries North American System and the System of Notaries Brazilian. They arise in the historical context in the same way, but at some point they separate when it starts to show the different legal systems in accordance with each culture, thus arise the Civil Law based on documentary evidence and the Common Law based on oral testimony. This difference between document and testimony that develops the powers of the notarial function.</p>


Author(s):  
Daniel Berkowitz ◽  
Karen B. Clay

Although political and legal institutions are essential to any nation's economic development, the forces that have shaped these institutions are poorly understood. Drawing on rich evidence about the development of the American states from the mid-nineteenth to the late twentieth century, this book documents the mechanisms through which geographical and historical conditions—such as climate, access to water transportation, and early legal systems—impacted political and judicial institutions and economic growth. The book shows how a state's geography and climate influenced whether elites based their wealth in agriculture or trade. States with more occupationally diverse elites in 1860 had greater levels of political competition in their legislature from 1866 to 2000. The book also examines the effects of early legal systems. Because of their colonial history, thirteen states had an operational civil-law legal system prior to statehood. All of these states except Louisiana would later adopt common law. By the late eighteenth century, the two legal systems differed in their balances of power. In civil-law systems, judiciaries were subordinate to legislatures, whereas in common-law systems, the two were more equal. Former civil-law states and common-law states exhibit persistent differences in the structure of their courts, the retention of judges, and judicial budgets. Moreover, changes in court structures, retention procedures, and budgets occur under very different conditions in civil-law and common-law states. This book illustrates how initial geographical and historical conditions can determine the evolution of political and legal institutions and long-run growth.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document