It is clear that comparative law is a very important discipline in communication between legal systems. In recent years, it has acquired practical importance for two reasons. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the English common law tradition placed great importance on precedents and on what is known as stare decisis. A court hearing a case would feel obliged to decide that case in the same manner as previously decided cases. Written decisions of the most important cases have been disseminated throughout England (the “common area”) and the judges hope to establish a set of reasonably predictable and consistent decisions. Constitutions, laws, regulations, treaties and court decisions may provide a legal basis in positive law. You may believe that you have been wronged, but in order for you to have an enforceable right in court, you must have something in the positive law that you can indicate that supports a cause of action against the defendant you have chosen. *United Arab Emirates** Vietnam`s legal system is based on socialist legal theory, the French civil law system, and Confucian law. Bahrain, Qatar, Somalia, Yemen In the first group are countries with a “mixed” system, influenced by both civil and common law. The old uncodified civil law of Holland is the basis of the Roman-Dutch law of South Africa, Zambia, Namibia, Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana and Sri Lanka; it is characterized by a rich legal literature dating back to Hugo Grotius (de Groot) in the 17th century. But their long contacts with Britain mean that their public law and legal proceedings owe much to the common law.
In general, the concept of religious legal system is a cluster concept, it is defined by several characteristics, not all of which need to apply at the same time. This creates a continuum. At one pole is the class of religious systems proper: one that exhibits all the characteristics of religious systems, at the other pole is a class of non-religious systems in the proper sense, without any of the characteristics mentioned. In other words, both poles are probably empty classes: no existing legal system has or has all the characteristics in question. Current legal systems lie on the continuum somewhere between the two poles. The religiosity of a legal system is determined by its proximity or distance from one of the poles.17 Note that we generally think of ourselves as secular systems that also have certain characteristics of religious legal systems, and vice versa. A number of other countries have a dual system. In such a system, religious rules govern and religious courts rule on matters such as marriage, divorce and family relations.
However, a secular system with state courts covers the broader areas of public and commercial law. This was the situation in England until the 1850s and it is now the case in Israel, India and Pakistan. In these dual jurisdictions, the proportion of human activity regulated by either system may depend on the level of economic and political development of the country concerned. As you might expect, these laws sometimes contradict each other: a state law may conflict with a federal law, or a federal law may violate an international obligation. The law of one nation may provide for a substantive rule, while the law of another nation may provide for another, somewhat opposing rule. In other words, not all laws are created equal. To understand which laws take precedence, it is important to understand the relationships between different types of laws. The system is more inquisitorial than adverse. The trial consists of a series of sessions, hearings and written communications during which the judge testifies.
The judge prepares the issues to be decided on the basis of discussions with the parties. Generally, the judge questions witnesses and may include or exclude any questions submitted by lawyers when preparing questions. Finally, the judge decides the issues and gathers evidence before announcing a decision.48 It is only at the last hearing that lawyers and parties argue before the judge. If there is a jury, its members are usually not recruited from the public, but selected on the basis of their expertise in the respective field. While ordinary juries are rare in civil justice systems, they are increasingly used in serious criminal cases. All these people can own property and hold it for their own property (house, clothing, etc.) or as a business or investment (office buildings, factories, stocks, savings accounts). Only socialist systems have attempted to prevent this second function of property by forbidding individuals to own “the means of production.” .