Comparative Legal Traditions - Introducing the Common Law to Civil Lawyers in Asia

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Fordham
2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helge Dedek

Every legal system that ties judicial decision making to a body of preconceived norms has to face the tension between the normative formulation of the ideal and its approximation in social reality. In the parlance of the common law, it is, more concretely, the remedy that bridges the gap between the ideal and the real, or, rather, between norms and facts. In the common law world—particularly in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth—a lively discourse has developed around the question of how rights relate to remedies. To the civilian legal scholar—used to thinking within a framework that strictly categorizes terms like substance and procedure, subjective right, action, and execution—the concept of remedy remains a mystery. The lack of “remedy” in the vocabulary of the civil law is more than just a matter of attaching different labels to functional equivalents, it is the expression of a different way of thinking about law. Only if a legal system is capable of satisfactorily transposing the abstract discourse of the law into social reality does the legal machinery fulfill its purpose: due to the pivotal importance of this translational process, the way it is cast in legal concepts thus allows for an insight into the deep structure of a legal culture, and, convergence notwithstanding, the remaining epistemological differences between the legal traditions of the West. A mixed jurisdiction must reflect upon these differences in order to understand its own condition and to define its future course.


Author(s):  
Thomas Kuehn

The period between the mid-14th and the mid-17th centuries saw the consolidation of both major European legal traditions. One was based on Roman and canon law and held sway as a common law (ius commune) on much of the European Continent. The other was rooted in royal writs and judgments that constituted the “common law” of England. The Romano-canonical law was based on venerable texts, chiefly those of the Corpus iuris civilis, compiled at the behest of the Emperor Justinian in the early 6th century, and the Corpus iuris canonici, assembled in the course of the Middle Ages by legal teachers and popes, with the process of assembly ending in the early 14th century. These texts served as the basis for a highly sophisticated and technical education in law in the medieval universities of Italy and southern France, whose graduates spread throughout Europe. The establishment of new universities from the 14th century—in Italy but also spreading to Germany, Spain, and elsewhere—only served to foster the geographical reach of the Romano-canonical law. This was also the point at which the teaching methods in the universities changed from the logical elaboration of authoritative texts (the so-called school of the glossators) in the direction of contemporary issues and practices (the era of the post-glossators and commentators). The greatest exponent of this trend was Bartolus of Sassoferrato (b. 1313–d. 1357), whose influence was such that it was said that to be a jurist was to be a “bartolist” (nemo iurista nisi bartolista) (see Jurisprudence and Legal Methodologies). The English law consisted of royal writs, Parliamentary statutes, customs, and precedents set in courts. These became in some regards increasingly rigid by the 14th and 15th centuries, but flexibility was introduced by means of the Royal Court of Chancery, which drew to some degree on Roman law notions. This was the so-called law of equity. The influence of royal courts and their remedies led to the waning of manorial and other local courts. The trend toward legal centralization in England was further fueled by the Crown’s break with Catholicism. By the 17th century the common law tradition, including much of the intervening developments in equity, served as the bastion of those who would resist the pretensions of the Stuart monarchs, especially Charles I (b. 1600–d. 1649). Developments in the commercial economy of Europe, intellectual and cultural trends, and religious turmoil would all pose problems in areas such as property law, contracts, marital relations and family prerogatives, and judicial procedures, and would call forth adjustments to resolve them.


Author(s):  
H. Patrick Glenn

For much of the twentieth century, comparatists have divided the world into ‘legal families’ (such as the civil law, the common law, socialist law, etc.) and assigned each (national) legal system a place in one of them. The chapter argues that this taxonomic enterprise has largely remained at the descriptive state, entailed a misleading division into fixed categories, and that is has failed to produce real comparison between laws. It is also too static, state-centred, and Euro-centric to be workable under conditions of late twentieth and early twenty-first century globalism. It should be replaced by the paradigm of ‘legal traditions’ which not only emphasizes the evolving nature of law, but also avoids dividing the world into clearly separated groupings. Instead, a ‘legal traditions’ approach focuses on the fluidity, interaction, and resulting hybridity of laws, thus facilitating their comparison. As it is not tied to Western-style national legal systems, it can easily capture the laws of the whole world, including the increasingly important non-state forms of legal normativity. Since the chapter was written by the late H. Patrick Glenn over a decade ago, the editors added a postscript bringing the reader up to date on the scholarship on, and the debate about, legal families and traditions.


Author(s):  
Marie Manikis

Victim participation in common law has evolved across history and jurisdictions. Historical developments within conceptions of crime, harms, and victims in common law as well as the different victims’ movements provide an understanding of the ways that victim participation has been shaped in more-recent common law criminal justice systems. Victim participation in the criminal legal process has also given rise to various debates, which suggests that providing active forms of engagement to victims remains controversial. The forms of victim participation are also diverse, and the literature has provided typologies of victim participation. Forms of participation also vary across jurisdictions and the different stages of the criminal justice process, including prosecutorial decisions, pretrial and trial proceedings, sentencing, parole, and clemency. Finally, research that focuses on victim participation in legal traditions beyond the common law would provide an additional and important contribution to the field.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Camarena ◽  
Bradly J. Condon

Abstract The ‘new NAFTA’ agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States maintained the system for binational panel judicial review of antidumping and countervailing duty determinations of domestic government agencies. In US–Mexico disputes, this hybrid system brings together Spanish and English-speaking lawyers from the civil and the common law to solve legal disputes applying domestic law. These panels raise issues regarding potential bicultural, bilingual, and bijural (mis)understandings in legal reasoning. Do differences in language, legal traditions, and legal cultures limit the effectiveness of inter-systemic dispute resolution? We analyze all of the decisions of NAFTA panels in US–Mexico disputes regarding Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty determinations and the profiles of the corresponding panelists. This case study tests whether one can actually comprehend the ‘other’. To what extent can a common law, English-speaking lawyer understand and apply Mexican law, expressed in Spanish and rooted in a distinct legal culture?


1974 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 477-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gideon Hausner

Close to one billion people, a third of the total population of the world, live under systems of government broadly defined as liberal-democratic, of which it can be said that authority rests on public opinion and is accountable to it. Out of the said number, only sixty million, i.e., 6%, live in states which have no formal written constitution. Great Britain is a notable example. New Zealand is another. Israel is a third in this exclusive company. In these countries it falls to the Courts, fortified as they are by the traditions of the Common law, to be the mainstay of the liberties of the individual. The English Common law, however, is “just like an English oak. You cannot transplant it to (another) continent and expect it to retain the tough character which it has in England. It will flourish indeed but it needs careful tending”. (per Lord Justice Denning).The application of western principles of the rule of law to the reborn Jewish State was more in the nature of a grafting than of a transplantation. It was a combination which offered an interesting legal experiment. While drawing upon ancient legal traditions and heritage, the Israel courts were vitalized through their access to the legal experience of English-speaking countries, especially so since the Common law in its mother country exemplified the adaptations of old principles to new needs long before it was exported abroad.


Author(s):  
Brittany Scott

Over the past number of years, the law surrounding the requirement to operate in good faith in conducting contractual obligations has been a developing principle in common law countries from Australia, to the United Kingdom to Canada. In Canada, this principle has developed separately within the civil and common law legal traditions respectively. While the Quebec Civil Code has historically provided for an expectation of parties to a contract to operate in good faith, the common law in Canada has not been as clear.  Prior to 2014, the Canadian common law duty to negotiate in good faith was an unsettled body of law, recognized in certain areas, but not across the discipline as a whole. It has only been since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew that this duty to negotiate in good faith has been outlined as a coherent set of guiding principles. Parties to a contract are now both bound by a general organizing principle of good faith in contracts and are expected to act honestly in the performance of their contractual obligations. While new to the Canadian common law, numerous cases have been quick to test the court’s interpretation of this change in scope to the law of good faith. As Canadian common law jurisprudence moves forward, this principle will continue to expand and develop.


2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline McCormack

Outside of the common law and civil law legal traditions, what is termed “Islamic law” forms one of the world's largest legal systems. There are more than one billion Muslims world-wide, and millions of those Muslims populate some of the world's richest trading zones. As of 2005, the Gulf Cooperation Council (G.C.C.), comprised of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, was the United States' fifth largest trading partner.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document