Common Law v. Civil Law

Here's the transcript for additional help!

Hello! In this video I will try to help you understand the difference between common law and civil law. I will focus on 3 differences which I consider to be the most important. We will go through them, one difference for each row of the table. Please keep in mind that there are other differences too. What I’m doing here is just giving you a head-start as to the main differences between common law and civil law.

Civil law is said to be codified as opposed to common law which is said to uncodified. When we say that something is codified, we basically mean that it is written down somewhere, that the rules are all collected together somewhere. The UK constitution is said to be uncodified because all the laws with which the state operates are not collected in a single book. In contrast, the US has the America’s Constitution book – their constitution is codified. Do bear in mind that the laws of England & Wales don’t just exist in the minds of people – they are written down, such as when an Act is passed by Parliament, or when the Court hands down a decision. The Act and the decision are written down. However, they are not all found somewhere collectively, and this is why the common law is said to be uncodified. A final point on this, the UK constitution can sometimes be said to not exist at all. As you should have gathered by now, everything is up for debate, but most agree that the UK constitution exists, it’s just not codified.

Moving on to the second difference between common law and civil law, have a look at the second row of the table. Judicial precedents are said to be binding in common-law jurisdictions. This means that like cases should be treated alike. This was mentioned in my previous video called ‘What is the Common Law?’ if you spotted it. Lower Courts have to follow upper Courts’ decisions, and matters which were dealt with one specific way, if another case arises with the same facts and/or legal issues, that also must be dealt with similarly. Judicial precedent is not so important in civil-law jurisdictions because the decisions themselves have not been reached purely through the judges’ own scholarship and interpretation. The judges’ role in civil-law jurisdictions is to establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of the applicable code. Although they use their expertise, they are not considered to be as creative as common-law judges. The judges’ role in common-law jurisdictions is to create the law to some extent, and to interpret the statutes passed by Parliament when those are in play in cases. Their role is therefore active and creative, as opposed to civil-law judges’ more passive and technical role. This is why judicial precedent is considered to be more important in common-law countries.

Finally, it should be clear by now that common-law jurisdictions are more case-law reliant, and also operate very much on custom and practice. In contrast, civil-law jurisdictions are more reliant on legislation/constitution.

I hope my video helped you understand the main differences between common law and civil law! If you found this helpful let me know by clicking the thumbs up button, and subscribing for more educational content to come! If you have any questions or feedback leave these in a comment below! Thank you for watching!

[marthms]

Thank you for this vid, really helpful for my French students in English law. And indeed, your voice, your tone and your rhythm are just perfect !

[mahmoudalsalman]

Thanks for your perfect illustration about the differences between common law and civil law. Thumbs up👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[rphb]

Generally it is not a good idea when jurist are "creative".
We want judges that are factual and fair, but we certainly do not want them to be "creative"

[Ackreti]

Main difference is that Common law is not transparent to people and people don't understand it. If you want to understand your rights and duties in Common law you need to learn hundreds of case laws in Year Books, thousands of pages of text. In Civil law you just open the Codex, find the section that's relevant to you and there you go. All your rights and duties in one place.

Another problem is judges in Common law are often unelected and unaccountable to the people. Some US states elect their judges though.

[sabakhelashvili]

how is it possible not to codify a law? What is an uncodified law? Is it a folk song which is not written or what?

[yukoro]

Thank you for this I was having trouble with this at school

[sabakhelashvili]

If it is so, what the heck does a parliament in UK or Congress in the US are doing? What structure do the laws have then if they are not written?

[Leopold_van_Aubel]

Under every video explaining these differences, there are people criticizing one system or the other as if their life depended on it.

[normski]

Civil law is technically NOT binding as they are statues, ( only carry the weight of law by individual consent) and all statues require the consent of the individual.

[nathanchowdry]

From what I have learned both are in the private instead of the public so I am not sure what legislation has to do with either

[SuperChromer]

I do thank you for this video, but do ask questions that I would be more than honored to openly challenge in any public forum, for all of the people to see and learn, about the true differences extended past the views and opinions of lawyers . SO, " I INVITE ANY LAWYER IN ANY COMMON LAW COUNTRY TO DEBATE IN ANY PUBLIC RECORDED FOR THE RECORD FORUM " . The question here between common law and [roman]civil law, is ; " what obligation [contract ] exists to this day of a man or woman to surrender rights to authority regarding law "?
The second question is to the matter of jurisdiction ; " does the [roman ] civil law have jurisdiction over a man or a woman "? please people, know your rights --- L = land, A = air, W = water ... any body, please correct me if I do not know ; Common Law = land, the common law of the land, Legal = water, and admiralty jurisdiction of the water ... are we the people standing upon water or land ? Were, we the people born upon the land or a vessel registered to a crown corporation ? Who is exercising authoritarian rule of law in the wrong jurisdiction ?
Who is it that took the rights of the people away, and converted that name given and the family name into a corporate entity, for the purposes of legal reasoning ? Who is it that decided you the man or the woman was to be given certain rights and certain freedoms, and were to be treated more or less as a human being ? Who is it that is claiming ownership of your names and used that created fiction name to be used for the creation of a banking document and that document is registered to who ? Were you able to accept a negotiated and created contract at the very moment of birth ? Yes, I have many questions to pose, but these will almost suffice for now . Who is is it, that did in factual truth, create and act upon constructed fraud, at the very moment of your birth ? Who is it that created an entire world around that constructed fraud, to keep you in actual servitude, and owning absolutely nothing ? Capitus Diminutio ---see the definition ... Capitalize ---see the definition, and where do all of the roads lead to with this constructed fraud ? The truth here is that an absolutely horrific creation has been made just for you, the man and woman reading this ; a warrior calls .com ---see the foundational knowledge video's ... then see the rest of the content ... it is time people ... " T " >>>... p.s. ---there is no doubt that I am one, and you the reader are one, but as knowledge is gathered and shared, we the people awaken to the truth of this matter, as well as many more ... it is time for we the people to claim back all that was taken from us by fraud .

[MrKelvinJane]

ive heard that common law is commonly more trustworthy. But when common law is uncodified and ppl may unwittingly violate it, how can one be liable to the crime that one does not understand. what is the legal point of view of this problem?

[drjoaoventura]

From my civil law life experience, it seems like “everything is not codified is allowed”.

[zoedemetriou]

Your voice is like music to my ears. Who cares about medicine, you make me wanna study law

[FinnlabelNYC]

US constitution is codified (civil law) but it is still based on common law. Please help explain?

[thokling]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

Common law: do not encroach on another individual or their personal belongings (things or upkept property), and honour your agreements with others. Freedom in spirit is guaranteed.

Statutory or civil law: any action which causes liability toward others is ultimately the responsibility of the government to handle based on trust law, hence the term "public trust". It's a licensor-licensee relationship utilising corporations to facilitate the transfer of that liability; in order to prevent that liability from being incurred on the part of that public trust, fines and penalties are enacted against those actions. Freedom is not guaranteed.

Many do not understand this distinction, and do not comprehend the nature and reason for personal responsibility. Me, I don't need mommy and daddy to guide me through the differences between right and wrong, and happily operate under common law here in Canada knowing that I'm ultimately responsible to the individuals I'm interacting with.

I do, however, utilise statutory jurisdiction in cases where I choose to engage with the government economically, particularly when I'm employed under a government-licensed business. But actions directly against me and my property are handled by me under common law per my own authority over myself and my property regardless of which jurisdiction I submit to.

I enjoyed the video. Thank you.

[alejandrocardonaherrera-ci]

Where is the statutory right in the common law?

[RPDBY]

"paaaarlament".... thank you for the video

[bamaaroufmohamed]

hello how can i found the resource of england law of contract?

[zelnamira]

How do civil law courts view the concept of precedent?