The Common Law and Civil Law Traditions

Most nations today follow one of two major legal traditions: common law or civil law. The common law tradition emerged in England during the Middle Ages and was applied within British colonies across continents. The civil law tradition developed in continental Europe at the same time and was applied in the colonies of European imperial powers such as Spain and Portugal. Civil law was also adopted in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by countries formerly possessing distinctive legal traditions, such as Russia and Japan, that sought to reform their legal systems in order to get economic and political power similar to that of Western European nation-states.

Common law is generally uncodified. This means that there is no comprehensive compilation of legal rules and statutes. Common law is largely based on precedent, judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases. These precedents are maintained over time through the records of the courts or historically documented in collections of case law known as yearbooks and reports. 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.

Civil Law, in contrast, is codified. Countries with civil law systems have comprehensive, continuously updated legal codes. These codes specify the procedure and the appropriate punishment for each offense. In a civil law system, the judge’s role is to establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of the applicable code. The judge works within a framework established by a comprehensive, codified set of laws. The judge’s decision is less crucial in shaping civil law than the decisions of legislators and legal scholars who draft and interpret the codes.

Adapted from www.law.berkeley.edu/library

Human Rights

Human rights are the rights all people have simply because they are human beings. To advocate human rights is to demand that the dignity of all people be respected. Both government and private individuals can violate human rights. Human rights apply in people’s homes, schools, and workplaces. In fact they apply everywhere. We have our human rights from the moment we are born until the moment we die. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a statement of basic human rights and standards for government that has been agreed to by almost every country in the world.

Human rights are standards that all countries can use when writing laws. Sometimes human rights become law in a country when the government signs an international treaty guaranteeing such rights. Human rights also can become law if they are included in a constitution or if the legislature of a country passes laws protecting or guaranteeing these rights. Even though they may not refer to them as “human rights, ” there are many provisions that protect human rights in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and in federal, state, and local laws.

Many of the human rights documents—including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—mention cultural rights, and it is widely accepted that all people have a right to their own culture. But what does this right to culture mean when culture comes into conflict with other universally accepted human rights? For example, the practice of female infanticide, or the killing of female babies, might be accepted in one culture, but the world community condemns it as a violation of a human right, the right to life. So cultural rights, like many other rights, are not absolute.

 

Adapted from Street Law by Lee P. Arbetman

⇐ Предыдущая10111213141516171819Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: