Common Law vs. Civil Law

Differences Between Common Law and Civil Law Systems The common law system and the civil law system take different approaches to the sources and development of law. This stems from their historical origins in England and continental Europe, respectively. While elements of both systems are now found in many nations, the basic principles remain distinct.

In common law systems, past court decisions and precedent guide judges in making current rulings. This is known as stare decisis. By contrast, civil law systems rely on codified statutes and legislation to provide rules. Rather than mandatory precedent, prior cases are only persuasive authority. Development of Law

Common law develops incrementally on a case-by-case basis as judges interpret the facts before them and apply precedent. This makes it flexible and adaptive but also somewhat unpredictable. Civil law develops through comprehensive legislation enacted by lawmakers that lays out principles, definitions, and rules. This promotes consistency and certainty. Use of Juries

Common law systems tend to rely more heavily on juries, especially in civil cases. Juries bring community perspectives to apply the law. Civil law systems prefer to entrust judges with decisions rather than unpredictable juries. Juries are mostly used in criminal cases in civil law nations. Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial

Common law tends toward an adversarial system where the parties argue their side before a neutral judge. Civil law utilizes more of an inquisitorial system with the judge actively investigating facts and questioning parties. Codification

While common law remains largely uncodified to allow judicial discretion, civil law relies on exhaustive, detailed civil codes covering core private law areas. However, some civil law codes leave room for interpretation and common law has become partially codified over time.