Common Law VS Civil Law

[octavefelix]

A very biased and simplistic presentation. Some corrections :
* Judges are not always elected in common law countries (only in the US, I believe)
* Civil law is not produced by the government but the Parliament, which in democracies is elected by the people (therefore, civil law is more democratic than common law because unelected and unaccountable judges do not hold such an important power)
* Civil law judges cannot refuse to rule on a case, even if there is no specific statute on the subject, that would be a denial of justice (see art. 4 of the French civil code for an example)
* Finally you did not adress the issue of the accessibility of the law : in France, I can find all the legal codes online on "Légifrance", well organised and structured. Is something like that possible under common law ?

[lufiealice]

Civil law doesn't come from the government, it comes from the legislature. Not the same thing.

[Samo]

This is a very simplistic view of civil law. In most civil places, the top courts (appellate, supreme or constitutional) have a certain amount of authority and their decisions are de facto precedents. Very rarely does a judge not decide a case because "there is no law". While yes, in theory, there's no such thing as a precedent in civil law, in practice there is. It's just that civil law judges are more constrained by codified law than common law judges are. Civil law judges also make decisions that cover new and uncodified areas of law, but since they cannot argue by equity alone, they have to be a bit more creative with their reasoning. In the German legal tradition (more specifically Austrian, but followed by Germany), judges can even strike down constitutional amendments deemed incompatible with the core values of the constitution - this is something unheard of in common law. So civil law judges wield even more power sometimes ;)

[lukenieber]

I think its a bit too simplistic to say that common law is from the people while civil law is from the government. First of the court system is obviously a branch of government, and there aren`t many countires where judges are elected by the people. Civil law on the other hand usually comes from a democratically elected legislative branch, which one could argue is "from the people" to a much higher degree then common law. Not a very good presentation.

[Leutzer]

@3:22 the speaker claims that common law is based on the power of the people, as opposed to civil law countries - this is strictly incorrect. Judges being appointed by the people in common law countries does not mean that people have more power - I would argue the opposite, the government in civil law countries are representing the people and the laws they pass should be followed - not changed by local judges. Instead in civil law countries the law is the law, not what the judge claims to be the law, furthermore in the Scandinavian courts we have ley judges that are chosen by the local political parties, meaning they are indeed chosen by the people - and they will affect the course of the case, meaning they have power - just not the power to CHANGE legislation. This video is extremely biased in favor of common law countries, some nuance should have been put into this before claiming such things.

[anatolelaine]

The juge of civil law cannot actually refuse to adjudicate under penalty of being guilty of a denial of justice
They would have to interpret the law, presume the intention of the parties, recourse to general principles etc...

[leenaa]

Almost all the countries in the middle east adopt CIVIL law system, when the French occupied Egypt it established its legal system and consequently it spread in the majority of the middle eastern countries, it would be nice if you made more research about it because it is history.

[andraskovacs]

I think one upside of civil law is that it doesn't rely on a "jury of peers", and cases are decided by judges based on codified law, and not put up to the "popularity contest" of a jury trial that American court movies capitalize on so well... there is way less drama in a civil court.
The video so blatantly biased towards common law, present so simplistic a view, it hurts.

[redtree]

Such a biased description, lol. It's clear the authors of the video side with "common law".

[noelishak]

Very clear but, Indonesia is using civil law, keep it up

[anteeko]

Common law is not based on the power of the people anymore than civil law.

it is judge, therefore the government that make law in common law.

[solelybre]

this video is so straight forward. Thank you

[helenkarren]

This is such a straightforward summary thankyou!

[likretir]

Why are you acting like basing law on the thought of the past is fair and just

[alyanasr]

This video is biased towards common law 😂

[jeffb.]

Common law is also very intransparent to the average person.

[avaraxxblack]

Someone should point out that the intentions/actions of gov't can only be presumed innocent for as long as they rely primarily on the consent of those affected.
Yet your consent is irrelevant, much like that of a slave. that's all one needs to realise to know everything else is an esoteric illusion, to conceal their crimes against humanity.

[IPOCRI]

just pointing out that civil law is also based on wisdom and even more cases since civil law is derived from roman law

[maramtekaya]

Tunisia in north africa we use civil law and not religious you are wrong

[eleanorgibbon]

the best video on this I've seen so far. doesn't unnecessarily use complex language and shows a simple view on the subject thankyou very much!