Why Is the English Legal System Important

Everyone takes for granted that law and legal systems differ from country to country. But this also applies to case law. One of the reasons for this is that the different responsibilities of lawyers from different countries in maintaining and developing local law. One result is that lawyers may have different agendas in different countries, which can affect the subject, scope, and even the form and style of local jurisprudence. Lexis Nexis Butterworths (LNB) contains primary and secondary legal documents from the UK, EU, US and many other countries. The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and jurisprudence. It was born with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the 12th century and was called « common » because it was also true throughout the country. The doctrine of binding jurisprudence, according to which courts follow and apply the principles set forth in previous cases decided by higher courts, called « courts of record », is also known by the Latin expression « stare decisis ». Changes in the constitutional situation since 2003 have also had important practical consequences.

These relate to the day-to-day functioning of the judiciary, the way judges are appointed and the way complaints are handled. These amendments have helped clarify the independence of the judiciary and are intended to improve accountability, public confidence and the effectiveness of the work of the judiciary. The creation of a Ministry of Justice in 2007, bringing together responsibility for criminal justice, prisons and criminal policy (previously the responsibility of the Home Secretary) and responsibility for the judicial service and mutual legal assistance (previously the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor), led to another agreement between the government and the judiciary in January 2008. This recognizes that the judiciary has a special responsibility to ensure justice independently. By the 17th century, the jury had ceased to understand the facts of the case and had the sole task of deciding whether the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while the judge was responsible for deliberating the jury on the relevant law. The jury system is considered an integral part of the legal system, although only 1 per cent of criminal cases are brought before a jury; In the public sphere in the UK, jurors are more trustworthy than judges, judges or ministers, and the right to a jury trial is seen as even more important than the right to protest politically. However, other countries have very different systems. In some countries, such as France, the jury and judge sit together to determine guilt, while in others the decision rests entirely with a judge or jury. In the United Kingdom, the use of juries is seen as a valuable check on governmental power and a means of enshrining the law in the Community. The arguments against juries suggest that they may not have the knowledge to understand the complex issues they face and that they may be influenced by their own biases.

Library of Legal Classics. Complete text of more than 100 legal texts, including Blackstone`s Commentaries (1803), Cardozo`s Growth of the Law (1924), and the first edition of Story`s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). The provincial laws of Canada include the provincial laws of ten of the Canadian provinces. Contains public and private laws passed by Canadian provincial governments. Up-to-date, revised and historical content is now available for Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Ontario. Historical and revised content is only available for Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan. This Spring 2008 Directions article is a summary of a paper presented by Roger Burridge (University of Warwick) at the October 2007 conference of the International Association of Faculties of Law. Conference participants were asked to write a short article on the main features of their country`s legal system – Roger`s discussion decisions were the legacy of the common law, participation in the EU and the UK`s dependence on international trade.

It is a truism that a national legal system can only be understood in the context of other systems. At the empirical level, the English legal system has a specific international resonance. This is most clearly hidden in its imperialist interventions with other European nations around the world. The common law legacy of British rule is complemented by civil conquests. The full version of Roger`s article, as well as more than 70 other contributions from contributors from around the world on their country`s legal system, can be found in the Delegate Documents section of the IAS conference website. In contrast, in a dualist system, international law must be translated into national law before it can be applied – so that the country could sign a treaty, but the law derived from that treaty would have no effect until it had been transposed into national law. This can lead to problems for international law if the country delays the translation of a treaty. It also poses problems when there are inconsistencies between international law and national law, as national law adopted after the incorporation of international law may contradict and replace international law – which could lead the country to violate its treaty implementing that international law. An example could be when a country signs a human rights treaty guaranteeing freedom of assembly and then incorporates the corresponding right into its own legal system. A subsequent government then passed a law prohibiting individuals from gathering in groups of more than three people. This would violate obligations under the Human Rights Treaty.

In a purely monistic system, this could not happen, as international law would automatically take precedence (although there are very few real examples of purely monistic states; most states that are essentially monistic still have some dualistic elements). Yet there is no preference in international law for monism or dualism; The country`s own traditions are respected. Since it is not a civil law system, it does not have full codification. [c] However, most criminal statutes have been codified for common law reasons, both in the interests of security and to facilitate prosecution. [7] [8] For the time being, murder remains a common crime rather than a legal offence. [9] [d] Such concerns were also raised in the 20th century.