3 ms·

I always find it interesting when legal opinions cite other countries’ precedents It makes sense because it maximises the hit-rate of finding a relevant preced

by A_Duck 1y ago

I always find it interesting when legal opinions cite other countries’ precedents It makes sense because it maximises the hit-rate of finding a relevant precedent, and kind of creates a global system of common law. Countries with newer legal systems (like Canada) can bootstrap centuries of precedent this way. Nearly a third of Canadian Supreme Court judgements cite foreign precedent!

fmajid 1y ago
There is a continuity with British law as it existed before Independence. In a similar vein, Israeli law incorporates Ottomon law, and France applies some German law in Alsace-Lorraine (which was annexed by Germany 1870-1914), even really fundamental principles like the separation of Church and State which does not apply there.
317070 1y ago
But relatively few countries follow common law with its focus on precedents. In fact, civil law is a lot more common, and that one cares less about precedents. [0] > The primary contrast between the two systems is the role of written decisions and precedent as a source of law (one of the defining features of common law legal systems). While Common law systems place great weight on precedent, civil law judges tend to give less weight to judicial precedent. For example, the Napoleonic Code expressly forbade French judges to pronounce general principles of law. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#/media/File%3AMap_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en).png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#/media/File%3AMap...
- skissane 1y ago
  > In fact, civil law is a lot more common, and that one cares less about precedents. For many civil law jurisdictions in Europe, I think the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights have changed this a lot in practice. Dutch or French or German judges in theory don't have to pay as much attention to precedent as Irish judges do [0] but when it comes to the decisions of the EU court system (the European Court of Justice and the courts/tribunals beneath it) and the European Court of Human Rights, the civil law judges have to pay attention to precedent just as much as the common law judges do [0] Mentioning Ireland as a pure common law jurisdiction which is still (unlike the UK) in the EU–Malta and Cyprus also follow common law, but both have hybrid systems which mix it with other legal traditions (primarily French-style civil law for Malta; Cyprus combines common law with Greek administrative law, which in turn is based on that of France, and its real estate law still retains Ottoman elements)

by A_Duck 1y ago

fmajid 1y ago

There is a continuity with British law as it existed before Independence. In a similar vein, Israeli law incorporates Ottomon law, and France applies some German law in Alsace-Lorraine (which was annexed by Germany 1870-1914), even really fundamental principles like the separation of Church and State which does not apply there.

317070 1y ago

But relatively few countries follow common law with its focus on precedents. In fact, civil law is a lot more common, and that one cares less about precedents. [0] > The primary contrast between the two systems is the role of written decisions and precedent as a source of law (one of the defining features of common law legal systems). While Common law systems place great weight on precedent, civil law judges tend to give less weight to judicial precedent. For example, the Napoleonic Code expressly forbade French judges to pronounce general principles of law. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#/media/File%3AMap_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en).png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#/media/File%3AMap...

skissane 1y ago
> In fact, civil law is a lot more common, and that one cares less about precedents. For many civil law jurisdictions in Europe, I think the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights have changed this a lot in practice. Dutch or French or German judges in theory don't have to pay as much attention to precedent as Irish judges do [0] but when it comes to the decisions of the EU court system (the European Court of Justice and the courts/tribunals beneath it) and the European Court of Human Rights, the civil law judges have to pay attention to precedent just as much as the common law judges do [0] Mentioning Ireland as a pure common law jurisdiction which is still (unlike the UK) in the EU–Malta and Cyprus also follow common law, but both have hybrid systems which mix it with other legal traditions (primarily French-style civil law for Malta; Cyprus combines common law with Greek administrative law, which in turn is based on that of France, and its real estate law still retains Ottoman elements)