Difference between revisions of "Imperative of Legal System"

From Wikinoah English
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
This will be a discussion of the seventh Noahide law
+
[[Image:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png|thumb|right|300px|World distribution of major legal traditions]]
 +
The three major '''legal systems of the world''' today consist of [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]], [[common law]] and [[religious law]]. However, each country (see [[State (law)]]) often develops variations on each system or incorporates many other features into the system.  Despite the usefulness of different classifications, every legal system has its own individual identity.
 +
 
 +
==Legal System in Jewish Law (for Noahides)
 +
 
 +
===Rabbi Aaron Lictenstein===
 +
 
 +
After discussing the [[Seven Laws as Categories]], Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein attempts define which of the 613 laws, based on Maimonides' Book of Divine Commandments, would fall under the Noahide Imperative of Legal System and therefore apply to Noahides, he writes:<ref>[[Aaron Lichtenstein|Lichtenstein, Aaron]]. "The Seven Laws of Noah". New York: The Rabbi Jacob Joseph School Press and Z. Berman Books, 2d ed. 1986</ref>
 +
 
 +
Just what are the implications of the Noahide imperative on Justice (Dinim) is the subject of dispute among major authors. All agree however that the following two aspects are implied: (a) that courts shall be established and (b) that any act which contributes to an unjust court decision shall be prohibited. That these two aspects are involved derives from the Talmudic remark to the effect that justice has reference to both (a) required acts of commission and (b) prohibited acts.
 +
 
 +
The following imperatives from among the Mosaic 613 are implicit in these two aspects of the Noahic law on justice:
 +
 
 +
1. ". . . to appoint judges and officers in each and every community." Positive 176.
 +
 
 +
2. ''. . . to treat the litigants equally before the law." Positive 177.
 +
 
 +
3. ". . . to inquire diligently into the testimony of a witness." Positive 179.
 +
 
 +
4. ". . . against the wanton miscarriage of justice by the court." Negative 273.
 +
 
 +
5. ". . . against the judge accepting a bribe or gift from a litigant." Negative 274.
 +
 
 +
6. ". . . against the judge showing marks of honor to but one litigant." Negative 275.
 +
 
 +
7. ". . . against the judge acting in fear of a litigant's threats." Negative 276.
 +
 
 +
8. ". . . against the judge, out of compassion, favoring a poor litigant." Negative 277.
 +
 
 +
9. ". . . against the judge discriminating against the litigant because he is a sinner." Negative 278.
 +
 
 +
10. ". . . against the judge, out of softness, putting aside the penalty of a mauler or killer." Negative 279.
 +
 
 +
11. ". . . against the judge discriminating against a stranger or an orphan." Negative 280.
 +
 
 +
12. ". . . against the judge hearing one litigant in the absence of the other." Negative 281.
 +
 
 +
13. ". . . against appointing a judge who lacks knowledge of the Law." Negative 284.
 +
 
 +
14. ". . . against the court killing an innocent man." Negative 289.
 +
 
 +
15. ". . . against incrimination by circumstantial evidence." Negative 290.
 +
 
 +
16. ". . . against punishing for a crime committed under duress." Negative 294.
 +
 
 +
17. ". . . that the court is to administer the death penalty by the sword [i.e., decapitation]." Positive 226.
 +
 
 +
18. ". . . against anyone taking the law into his own hands to kill the perpetrator of a capital crime." Negative 292.
 +
 
 +
19. ". . . to testify in court." Positive 178.
 +
 
 +
20. against testifying falsely." Negative 285.
 +
 
 +
Thus, twenty from among the Mosaic 613 have application for the Noahite under Justice. According to Maimonides – and most writers probably would side with him - Justice purports nothing more than the spirit of these twenty items. However, Nahmanides (Ramban) objects. He views justice as signifying  much more. Nahmanides begins his statement of view by quoting a comment by Maimonides concerning the destruction of the city of Shechern by Simon and Levi in retaliation for the rape of their sister at the hands of the city's favorite son, in the 34th chapter of Genesis:
 +
 
 +
The Master [Maimonides] explains in his volume on judges [Code, "Laws for Kings" 9:14], that since Noahites are charged with upholding justice - meaning that they must appoint judges who are to rule on their [remaining] six laws in each and every town - and, furthermore, since a Noahite who violates any one of his laws is to be executed by the sword, therefore all citizens of Shechern were fit to die, because Shechern [the son] stole and they all saw and knew it but they did not bring him to justice.
 +
 
 +
I do not think this explanation is correct. For if so, then their father, Jacob, should have been under obligation to assume a leading role in the executions; and if he was afraid why did he wax angry at his sons to the extent that long after he cursed their fury, he punished them, and he scattered them. Had they not done a good thing, having had faith in the Lord and He granted them success?
 +
 
 +
Anyway, to my mind, this justice which is enumerated among the Seven Laws of Noah is not limited to the establishment of courts. Rather, it charges the Noahites with laws on stealing, overcharging, withholding salaries, the liability of watchmen, rape, seduction, damages, bodily injury, loans, business transactions, and the like, similar to the laws with which the Israelites are charged. Thus, they place themselves under threat of execution by stealing, or cheating, or raping, or seducing another's daughter, or burning down another's silo, or injuring him, and the like. It is this same law that also obligates them to appoint judges in each town, like the Israelites. However, if they neglect to do this they are not to be executed, because this derives from a positive imperative, and the rule of "Their prohibition [when violated, constitutes grounds for] their execution," applies only for the negative imperatives . . . . 
 +
 
 +
In the above, Nahmanides ascribes to justice a compilation of statutes which directs the judge in making the appropriate decision in every case of "stealing ... rape ... bodily injury ... business transactions, and the like." In other words, the Noahic category of justice alludes to an actual code of law.
 +
 
 +
Most of the statutes to which Nahmanides refers are designated Positive 236 through Positive 246. Would Nahmanides, then, have us add Positive 236 - Positive 246 (and similar statutes) to the twenty listed above? No, for the following reason: When Nahmanides writes "similar to the laws with which the Israelite are charged," he does not mean that the Noahide laws here are the same as the corresponding Israelite laws. He cannot mean this because the talmudic sources specifically differentiate between Noahic and Mosaic law in the very cases Nahmanides enumerates.  What Nahmanides must mean is that just as the Israelite code has a definite ruling for each civil dispute, "similarly" the Noahide tradition has a definite – but not necessarily an identical - ruling. That is to say, Noahide justice does not leave it for each judge or government to develop original principles of equity; rather, a set of such principles are part and parcel of Noahism, under Justice. This idea is further developed, and extended, by Moses Isserles (circa 1500) who reads this very issue into a talmudic argument:
 +
 
 +
... Rabbi Johanan, [in Sanhedrin 56b,] maintains that Noahites are compelled, under the requirements of justice, merely to  uphold the national customs, and to judge between man and man fairly. But Noahites are not compelled to be in consonance with Israel's law, bequeathed by the hands of Moses at Sinai, because Noahic law is purely a law of social accord ... the statutes of Israel are one thing and the statutes of Noah are another.
 +
 
 +
However, Rabbi Isaac has a different approach. He maintains [ibid.] that Noahic Justice involves the very law which Jews were bequeathed at Sinai ... and it seems to me that the opinion of Rabbi Isaac prevails, because . . . . 
 +
 
 +
Here again caution should be exercised not to misread Isserles to mean that all Noahic and Sinaitic laws are identical, and Isserles himself goes on to make mention of some aspects wherein the two systems differ. Still Isserles, more so than is apparent from the words of Nahmanides, sees the two systems as having a great deal in common. For according to Isserles, the civil laws of the two systems differ only where the Talmudic sources explicitly note the dissimilarity, "but otherwise one should not presume to exclude the Noahite from Mosaic principles."
 +
 
 +
Maimonides would not necessarily dispute Nahmanides' assertion that Noahide Justice has reference to an actual tradition of specific rulings. Isserles surely sees it this way, for in his essay he quotes Maimonides extensively in search of support for the thesis that justice embodies an actual code. Where Maimonides does differ with Nahmanides is that the latter maintains that it is justice which alludes to a compilation of all Noahide regulations, whereas Maimonides simply sees in each of the Seven Laws an implicit expression of that part of the Noahide law with which it is concerned. That is, the laws on homicide are implicit in the category of Homicide; the laws on stealing - which are what Nahmanides largely deals with there - are implicit in Theft, not justice.
 +
 
 +
Surely Maimonides' position is a logical one. Furthermore, what significant difference does Nahmanides see between theoretically considering justice the depository of all the laws, and theoretically considering these laws as implicit within each of the various sections? A second question that Nahmanides would have to answer is: if justice "charges the Noahites with laws on stealing" etc., why is the category of Theft required at all?
 +
 
 +
In the view of these questions, the statement and position of Nahmanides are best understood as follows:
 +
 
 +
The one part of Maimonides' statement to which Nahmanides objects strongly is the assertion that there can be prosecution by the court for neglect to bring a wrongdoer to justice. Nahmanides argues that such neglect - it being a crime of omission - does not invite punitive action. And yet, Nahmanides is hard put to explain away the implication that each one of all the Seven Laws calls for punitive action, because the Talmud makes no distinctions when it states, "Their prohibition [when violated, constitutes sufficient grounds for] their execution. Rav Huna and Rav Judah and all the students of Rav say, 'For each of the Seven Laws a Noahite may be executed.' "  And while Nahmanides might defend himself by noting that when justice is violated via an act of commission – such as when a judge accepts a bribe - punitive action does properly apply, still Nahmanides would have to take into account that this case (the transgression of justice via an act of commission) is conceived by the Talmud as being but a concomitant of justice and not its primary aspect.
 +
 
 +
It is this difficulty which Nahmanides is intent upon eluding when he designates the primary aspect of justice a code, an entity, a body of statutes, and consequently neither acts of commission nor acts of omission.  Instead, these positive and negative aspects are outgrowths of the code and are equally basic; therefore it is not strange that the Talmud ascribes court penalties to all the Seven Laws, Justice included.
 +
 
 +
This then is the answer to the first question raised above. (Namely, what significant difference does Nahmanides see between theoretically considering justice the depository of all the laws, and theoretically considering these laws as implicit within each of the various sections?) Nahmanides attaches no significance to this theoretical difference and he disputes Maimonides in this connection only in the effort to defend his main argument: that neglect to bring a wrongdoer to justice is not a punishable offense. The two issues dovetail, as seen above.
 +
 
 +
Nahmanides may have felt especially secure in this view because the word Dinim - which in keeping with accepted usage is translated here as justice - is markedly unlike the other six terms which the Talmud has coined. The other six conjure up an activity, such as theft, illicit relations, blasphemy, etc., and evidently the point is to tag each activity either desirable or immoral. But the term Dinim translated precisely is "Laws"; whereas pursuing justice is best denoted by the term Mishpat. So that Maimonides would be under obligation to explain the substitution of Dinim for Mishpat. However in Nahmanides' view Dinim is just that: a group of laws.
 +
 
 +
Turning now to the second question which was directed at Nahmanides (namely, why after justice is Theft needed at all?) one achieves the following understanding:
 +
 
 +
Theft serves to tag stealing as being immoral, so that every man of -honor will avoid it, even when the theft will never come to light and no charges will be pressed. This parallels the remaining five Noahic laws which are designed to, inform the individual of the evil inherent in those acts. (In religious terms, these acts are thereby proclaimed to be sins.) The seventh law, Dinim, features a different dimension however. It instructs society, as represented by the court, on how to regulate and process any breach of these standards. In other words, Dinim is procedural law, while Theft is substantive Iaw.
 +
 
 +
One additional point should be granted so as to put our understanding of Nahmanides on solid ground. Nahmanides considers Dinim the procedural law of all the Laws of Noah, not only of Theft. Of course, this assumption may seem strange because all the examples of procedural law mentioned by Nahmanides pertain to Theft. Still, Nahmanides might have limited his examples to Theft because the case under discussion there - the abduction of Dinah - pertains to Theft. At any rate, if one does not grant that Dinim for Nahmanides contains the whole of Noahic procedural law, one would be putting Nahmanides in the position of having to explain away why the substantive and the procedural aspects of Theft were given separate categories, whereas each of the remaining laws have their procedural and substantive aspects grouped together. For no one can doubt that there are procedural aspects to the remaining five laws, and Nahmanides clearly accepts the initial statement of Maimonides that "Noahites are charged with upholding justice - meaning that they must appoint judges who are to rule on their [remaining] six laws…"
 +
 
 +
In sum, the Nahmanides argument, as expressed in the paragraph quoted earlier, runs as follows:
 +
 
 +
Anyway, to my mind, this justice ... is not limited to the establishment of courts.
 +
 
 +
Maimonides thinks that in the category of Justice there can be punishment for a crime of omission - although he surely agrees that this would not be possible in the other six categories or in Mosaic law - because he thinks that justice is essentially a requirement to establish courts and therefore the punishable violation of this requirement is necessarily an act of omission. Nahmanides however thinks justice is essentially another thing:
 +
 
 +
Rather, it charges the Noahites with laws on stealing, overcharging, withholding salaries, the liability of watchmen, rape, seduction, damages, bodily injury, loans, business transactions, and the like ....
 +
 
 +
Justice, says Nahmanides, is a complete code of law, which is directed at the court, and which has in it everything the court must know in the realm of civil law ("loans, business transactions, and the like"), in the realm of criminal law ("stealing, overcharging, withholding salaries") which spill over from the area of Theft, and in the realm of the other criminal areas: Homicide, Illicit Intercourse, Blasphemy, Idolatry, and Limb of a Living Creature.
 +
 
 +
Thus, they place themselves under threat of execution by stealing, or cheating, or raping, or seducing another's daughter, or burning down another's silo, or injuring him, and the like. It is this same Law that also obligates them to appoint judges …
 +
 
 +
Having stated that justice embodies all Noahic procedural law, Nahmanides reasons as follows: Whenever the court undertakes punitive action against a citizen, it makes no difference whether the action stems from a violation of Theft ("stealing, cheating") or a violation of justice ("appoint judges") as far as basic procedure is concerned, because all Noahic procedure has a single source, Justice. Consequently, it would be incomprehensible to proceed for a crime of omission under justice, when it is clear that one does not proceed for a crime of omission under Theft or Blasphemy, etc. Thus Nahmanicles concludes:
 +
 
 +
However, if they neglect to do this [to appoint judges] they are not to be executed ....
 +
 
 +
Before leaving the text of Nahmanides, note should be taken that all the following were considered instances of Theft: "stealing, or cheating, or raping, or seducing another's daughter, or burning down another's silo, or injuring him…" Rape, where no violation of Illicit Intercourse is involved, is still Theft in that the use of a person's body is his prerogative as much as is the use of his property. In including seducing another's daughter, Nahmanides goes on to assume that the consent of a minor is disregarded and that the father has control over the property rights of his underage daughter, this being the case in Jewish law. In mentioning burning down another's silo or injuring him, Nahmanides reasons that under Theft it is not essential for the thief to take the property unto himself, but that the essential element in Theft lies in depriving the owner of his property. Note that of the four categories of torts listed in the first Mishna. of Baba Kama as the Goring Ox, the Pit, the Eating Animal, and the Fire, Nahmanides singles out the Fire and makes no mention of the remaining three. Seemingly, the remaining three were left out intentionally and for this reason: The Fire may conceivably be grouped under Theft because the setting of the fire may be considered a criminal act. The other three, however, may not be grouped under Theft because here the liability accrues from the mere neglect to act in preventing the public's property and one's own destructive property from coming into contact. And while such neglect gives a plaintiff sufficient grounds for filing a civil suit to recover damages, it does not render the defendant a criminal under Theft, there not being the required commission of a criminal act. Thus, in singling out the Fire, Nahmanides is reiterating his central contention in the dispute with Maimonicles, namely, that the neglect to appoint judges does not invite criminal punishment, for one can technically become a criminal only by committing a definite act.
 +
 
 +
That Justice should be thought of as referring to a thorough going system containing points of law, as Nahmanides and Isserles see it, is denied by at least one early author. Jacob Anatoli (1194-1256) expresses the view, in his Hamelamed, that the Noahide tradition does not feature a comprehensive code of standard regulations under Justice. Anatoli writes:
 +
 
 +
When the Noahites were enjoined concerning Justice, they were put under obligation to create legal arrangements .... It is incumbent on the judges to draw up rules of equity that shall be appropriate for that particular country, as exemplified by the manner in which this matter is handled currently by the nations, severally. Likewise, it is incumbent upon merchants and upon the members of the trades to establish regulations for themselves... and whatever emerges as the law in this manner is law, as much as that which is written in the Bible. Furthermore, anyone violating this law violates Scripture, because Scripture commands the individual to accept the decisions of the contemporary jurists. The dictum, "The law of the land is the Law," relates to this concept.
 +
 
 +
Nonetheless, Anatoli could agree to the inclusion of the twenty imperatives which are listed above as features of Noahide Justice. For these twenty are but manifestations of those two aspects by which the talmudic sources define Justice, (a) that courts shall be established and (b) that any act which contributes to an unjust decision be prohibited.
  
  
Line 5: Line 118:
 
[[Image:BDBN.gif|right]]
 
[[Image:BDBN.gif|right]]
 
It is important to form courts of justice so that persons can be called upon to uphold the mitzvot, the religious laws and to be able to judge between people. Sages were divided as to whether the Noahides should be judged according to the Torah concerning financial matters or whether they should be judged according to common sense. It is worthwhile that such courts of justice should give sentences according to the same law for men and for women. The judges should be men since a woman should strive not to be involved in public matters. Every person should go to a court for justice and not try to mete out justice himself. Courts of justice are allowed to enforce regulations for the benefit of the society and to improve ethics and morality. It is the obligation of the Noahide to execute justice to the fullest degree and not to be merciful to criminals. People have the obligation to obey the law and see that the legislative and judicial and personnel and systems obey the law.<ref>[http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-1806/seven-noahide-laws/ Noahide Commandments by Rabbi Yoel Schwartz, Translated by Yitzhak A. Oked Sechter, Reviewed and corrected by Yechiel Sitzman in consultation with Rabbi Yoel Schwartz]</ref>
 
It is important to form courts of justice so that persons can be called upon to uphold the mitzvot, the religious laws and to be able to judge between people. Sages were divided as to whether the Noahides should be judged according to the Torah concerning financial matters or whether they should be judged according to common sense. It is worthwhile that such courts of justice should give sentences according to the same law for men and for women. The judges should be men since a woman should strive not to be involved in public matters. Every person should go to a court for justice and not try to mete out justice himself. Courts of justice are allowed to enforce regulations for the benefit of the society and to improve ethics and morality. It is the obligation of the Noahide to execute justice to the fullest degree and not to be merciful to criminals. People have the obligation to obey the law and see that the legislative and judicial and personnel and systems obey the law.<ref>[http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-1806/seven-noahide-laws/ Noahide Commandments by Rabbi Yoel Schwartz, Translated by Yitzhak A. Oked Sechter, Reviewed and corrected by Yechiel Sitzman in consultation with Rabbi Yoel Schwartz]</ref>
 +
 +
==Legal System in Noahide Law==
 +
 +
[[Image:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png|thumb|right|300px|World distribution of major legal traditions]]
 +
The three major '''legal systems of the world''' today consist of [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]], [[common law]] and [[religious law]]. However, each country (see [[State (law)]]) often develops variations on each system or incorporates many other features into the system.  Despite the usefulness of different classifications, every legal system has its own individual identity.
 +
 +
 +
===Civil law===
 +
 +
Civil law is the most widespread system of [[law]] in the world.
 +
It is also known as <em>European Continental law</em>. The central source of law that is recognised as authoritative are [[codification]]s in a [[constitution]] or [[statute]] passed by government, to amend a code. Civil law systems mainly derive from the [[Roman Empire]], and more particularly, the ''[[Corpus Juris Civilis]]'' issued by the Emperor [[Justinian]] ca. 529AD. This was an extensive reform of the law in the [[Eastern Empire]], bringing it together into codified documents. Civil law today, in theory, is interpreted rather than developed or made by judges. Only [[legislature|legislative]] enactments (rather than [[judiciary|judicial]] [[precedent|precedents]]) are considered legally binding. However, in reality courts do pay attention to previous decisions, especially from higher courts.
 +
 +
Scholars of [[comparative law]] and economists promoting the [[legal origins theory]] usually subdivide civil law into three distinct groups:
 +
*[[French law|French civil law]]: in [[France]], the [[Benelux]] countries, [[Italy]], [[Spain]] and former colonies of those countries;
 +
*[[Law of Germany#Civil law|German civil law]]: in [[Germany]], [[Austria]],Croatia [[Switzerland]], [[Greece]], [[Portugal]], [[Turkey]], [[Japan]], [[South Korea]] and the [[Republic of China]];
 +
*[[Scandinavian law|Scandinavian civil law]]: in [[Denmark]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. [[Finland]] and [[Iceland]] inherited the system from their neighbors.
 +
 +
A comprehensive list of countries that base their legal system on a [[Codification|codified]] civil law follows:
 +
{| width="100%" class="wikitable"
 +
|-
 +
! width="130px" |Country
 +
! Description
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Albania}} [[Law of Albania|Albania]]
 +
|The Civil Code of the Republic of Albania, 1991 really[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN014893.pdf]
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Angola}} [[Law of Angola|Angola]]
 +
|Based on [[Portugal|Portuguese]] civil law
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Argentina}} [[Law of Argentina|Argentina]]
 +
|The [[Spain|Spanish]] legal tradition had a great influence on the [[Civil Code]] of [[Argentina]], basically a work of the [[Argentinean]] [[jurist]] [[Dalmacio Vélez Sársfield]], who dedicated five years of his life on this task. The Civil Code came into effect on January 1, 1871. Beyond the influence of the Spanish legal tradition, the Argentinian Civil Code was also inspired by the Draft of the [[Brazilian]] Civil Code, the [[wikt:Draft|Draft]] of the Spanish Civil Code of 1851, the [[Napoleonic code]] and the [[Chilean]] Civil Code. The sources of this Civil Code also include various theoretical legal works, mainly of the great [[France|French]] jurists of the 19<sup>th</sup> century. It was the first Civil Law that consciously adopted as its cornerstone the distinction between i. rights from obligations and ii. real property rights, thus distancing itself from the French model.
 +
 +
The Argentinian Civil Code was also in effect in [[Paraguay]], as per a [[Paraguayan]] law of 1880, until the new Civil Code went in force in 1987.
 +
 +
During the second half of the 20th century, the [[German law|German]] legal theory became increasingly influential in Argentina.
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Andorra}} [[Laws of Andorra|Andorra]]
 +
|Courts apply the customary laws of Andorra, supplemented with Roman law and customary Catalan law.<ref>http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3164.htm</ref>
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Armenia}} [[Law of Armenia|Armenia]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Aruba}} [[Law of Aruba|Aruba]]
 +
|Based on [[Netherlands|Dutch]] civil law
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Austria}} [[Law of Austria|Austria]]
 +
|The [[Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch]] (ABGB) of 1811
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Azerbaijan}} [[Law of Azerbaijan|Azerbaijan]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Belarus}} [[Law of Belarus|Belarus]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Belgium}} [[Law of Belgium|Belgium]]
 +
|Influenced by the [[Napoleonic Code]]
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Benin}} [[Law of Benin|Benin]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Bolivia}} [[Law of Bolivia|Bolivia]]
 +
|Influenced by the [[Napoleonic Code]]
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Bosnia and Herzegovina}} [[Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina|Bosnia and Herzegovina]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Brazil}} [[Law of Brazil|Brazil]]
 +
|Derived from the [[Portugal|Portuguese]] civil law
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Bulgaria}} [[Law of Bulgaria|Bulgaria]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Burkina Faso}} [[Laws of Burkina Faso|Burkina Faso]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Burundi}} [[Laws of Burundi|Burundi]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Chad}} [[Laws of Chad|Chad]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|China}} [[Law of the People's Republic of China|People's Republic of China]]
 +
|based on civil law system; derived from Soviet and continental civil code legal principles.
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Republic of the Congo}} [[Laws of Republic of the Congo|Republic of the Congo]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Democratic Republic of the Congo}} [[Laws of Democratic Republic of the Congo|Democratic Republic of the Congo]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Cote d'Ivoire}} [[Laws of Cote d'Ivoire|Cote d'Ivoire]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Cambodia}} [[Law of Cambodia|Cambodia]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Cape Verde}} [[Law of Cape Verde|Cape Verde]]
 +
|Based on [[Portugal|Portuguese]] civil law
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Central African Republic}} [[Law of Central African Republic|Central African Republic]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Chile}} [[Law of Chile|Chile]]
 +
|The Spanish legal tradition exercised an especially great influence on the [[civil code]] of [[Chile]]. On its turn, the Chilean civil code influenced to a large degree the drafting of the civil codes of other [[Latin-American]] states. For instance, the codes of [[Ecuador]] (1861) and [[Colombia]] (1873) constituted faithful reproductions of the Chilean code, but for very few exceptions. The compiler of the Civil Code of Chile, [[Andrés Bello]], worked for its completion for almost 30 years, using elements, of the Spanish law on the one hand, and of other Western laws, especially of the French one, on the other. Indeed, it is noted that he consulted and used all of the codes that had been issued till then, starting from the era of [[Justinian]].
 +
 +
The Civil Code came into effect on January 1, 1857. Its technique is regarded as perfect; it is distinguished for the clarity, logic and cohesiveness of its provisions. As mentioned by Arminjon, Nolde, and Wolff ('Traite de droit comparé', Paris, 1950-1952) [[Andrés Bello]] may be regarded as one of the great legislators of mankind. The influence of the [[Napoleonic code]] is great; it is observed however that e.g. in many provisions of [[property law]], the solutions of the French <em>code civil</em> were put aside in favor of pure [[Roman law]].
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Colombia}} [[Law of Colombia|Colombia]]
 +
|Civil code introduced in 1873. Nearly faithful reproduction of the [[Chilean]] civil code
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Costa Rica}} [[Law of Costa Rica|Costa Rica]]
 +
|Influenced by the [[Napoleonic Code]]
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Croatia}} [[Law of Croatia|Croatia]]Kazneni zakon RH- Great influence of Austro- Hungarian law system
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Cuba}} [[Law of Cuba|Cuba]]
 +
|Influenced by Spanish and American law with large elements of [[Communist legal theory]].
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Czech Republic}} [[Law of the Czech Republic|Czech Republic]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Denmark}} [[Courts of Denmark|Denmark]]
 +
|Scandinavian-German civil law
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Dominican Republic}} [[Law of the Dominican Republic|Dominican Republic]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Ecuador}} [[Law of Ecuador|Ecuador]]
 +
|Civil code introduced in 1861. Nearly faithful reproduction of the [[Chilean]] civil code
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|El Salvador}} [[Law of El Salvador|El Salvador]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Estonia}} [[Law of Estonia|Estonia]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Finland}} [[Law of Finland|Finland]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|France}} [[French law|France]]
 +
|Based on the [[Napoleonic code]] (<em>code civil</em> of 1804)
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Equatorial Guinea}} [[Laws of Equatorial Guinea|Equatorial Guinea]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Ethiopia}} [[Laws of Ethiopia|Ethiopia]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Gabon}} [[Laws of Gabon|Gabon]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Guinea}} [[Laws of Guinea|Guinea]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Guinea-Bissau}} [[Laws of Guinea-Bissau|Guinea-Bissau]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Georgia}} [[Law of Georgia|Georgia]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Germany}} [[German law|Germany]]
 +
|The [[Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch]] of 1900
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Greece}} [[Law of Greece|Greece]]
 +
|The Greek [[civil code]] of 1946, highly influenced by the German civil code of 1900 ([[Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch]]); the Greek civil code replaced the [[Byzantine-Roman]] civil law in effect in Greece since its independence (Νομική Διάταξη της Ανατολικής Χέρσου Ελλάδος, Legal Provision of Eastern Mainland Greece, November 1821: 'Οι Κοινωνικοί Νόμοι των Αειμνήστων Χριστιανών Αυτοκρατόρων της Ελλάδος μόνοι ισχύουσι κατά το παρόν εις την Ανατολικήν Χέρσον Ελλάδα', 'The Social [i.e. Civil] Laws of the Dear Departed Christian Emperors of Greece [referring to the Byzantine Emperors] alone are in effect at present in Eastern Mainland Greece')
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Guatemala}} [[Law of Guatemala|Guatemala]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Haiti}} [[Law of Haiti|Haiti]]
 +
|Influenced by the [[Napoleonic Code]]
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Honduras}} [[Law of Honduras|Honduras]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Hungary}} [[Law of Hungary|Hungary]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Iceland}} [[Law of Iceland|Iceland]]
 +
|Based on Germanic traditional laws and influenced by Medieval Norwegian and Danish laws.
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Italy}} [[Law of Italy|Italy]]
 +
|Based on codified [[Roman law]], with elements of the [[Napoleonic civil code]]; civil code of 1942 replaced the original one of 1865
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Japan}} [[Japanese law|Japan]]
 +
|Modeled after European (primarily German) civil law system. Japanese civil code of 1895.
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Latvia}} [[Law of Latvia|Latvia]]
 +
|Largely influenced by Germany, medium influences from Russian and Soviet law.
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Lebanon}} [[Law of Lebanon|Lebanon]]
 +
|Modeled after French civil law
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Lithuania}} [[Law of Lithuania|Lithuania]]
 +
|Modeled after Dutch civil law
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Luxembourg}} [[Law of Luxembourg|Luxembourg]]
 +
|Influenced by the [[Napoleonic Code]]
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Macau}} [[Legal system of Macau|Macau]]<br>{{flagicon|China}} ([[China]])
 +
|Based on the Portuguese strand of the continental tradition, itself much influenced by Germany; also influenced by the law of the PRC
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Mexico}} [[Legal system of Mexico|Mexico]]
 +
|"The origins of Mexico's legal system are both ancient and classical, based on the Greek, Roman and French legal systems, and the Mexican system shares more in common with other legal systems throughout the world (especially those in Latin America and most of continental Europe)..." From: http://www.mexonline.com/lawreview.htm Jaime B. Berger Stender Attorney at Law author, Tijuana, B.C., Mexico
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Mongolia}} [[Law of Mongolia|Mongolia]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Netherlands}} [[Law of the Netherlands|Netherlands]]
 +
|Influenced by the [[Napoleonic Code]]
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Norway}} [[Law of Norway|Norway]]
 +
|Scandinavian-German civil law
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Panama}} [[Law of Panama|Panama]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Paraguay}} [[Law of Paraguay|Paraguay]]
 +
|The Paraguayan Civil Code in force since 1987 is largely influenced by the Napoleonic Code and the Argentinian Code
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Peru}} [[Law of Peru|Peru]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Poland}} [[Polish law|Poland]]
 +
|The Polish Civil Code in force since 1965
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Portugal}} [[Portuguese law|Portugal]]
 +
|Influenced by the [[Napoleonic Code]] and later by the German Civil Law
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Taiwan}} [[Law of the Republic of China|Republic of China (Taiwan)]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Romania}} [[Romanian law|Romania]]
 +
|Based on the [[Napoleonic Code]]
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Russia}} [[Law of Russia|Russia]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Slovakia}} [[Law of Slovakia|Slovakia]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Spain}} [[Law of Spain|Spain]]
 +
|Influenced by the [[Napoleonic Code]]
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Sweden}} [[Law of Sweden|Sweden]]
 +
|Scandinavian-German civil law. Like all Scandinavian legal systems, it is distinguished by its traditional character and for the fact that it did not adopt elements of Roman law. It is indeed worth mentioning that it assimilated very few elements of foreign laws whatsoever. It is also interesting that the Napoleonic Code had no influence in codification of law in Scandinavia. The historical basis of the law of Sweden, just as for all Nordic countries, is the Old German law. Codification of the law started in Sweden during the 18th century, preceding the codifications of most other European countries. However, neither Sweden, nor any other Nordic state created a civil code of the kind of the <em>Code Civil</em> or the BGB.
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Switzerland}} [[Law of Switzerland|Switzerland]]
 +
|The [[Zivilgesetzbuch]] of 1908 and 1912 (obligations; fifth book)
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Turkey}} [[Law of Turkey|Turkey]]
 +
|Modeled after the [[Swiss]] civil law ([[Zivilgesetzbuch]]) of 1907; this has been a conscious choice of [[Kemal Atatürk]], the founder of the modern [[Turkey|Turkish state]], in order to abolish the [[Islamic law]] ([[Sharia]]), aiming at westernizing the country
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Slovakia}} [[Law of Slovakia|Slovakia]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Uruguay}} [[Law of Uruguay|Uruguay]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Vatican City}}  [[Law of the Vatican City|Vatican City]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Vietnam}} [[Legal system in Vietnam|Vietnam]]
 +
|[[Communism|Communist legal theory]] and [[French civil law]]
 +
|}
 +
 +
===Common law===
 +
{{main|Common law}}
 +
[[Image:King John of England signs the Magna Carta - Illustration from Cassell's History of England - Century Edition - published circa 1902.jpg|thumb|right|150px|King John of England signs the Magna Carta]]
 +
Common law and [[equity]] are systems of law whose sources are the decisions in cases by [[judge]]s. Alongside, every system will have a [[legislature]] that passes new laws and statutes, however these do not amend a collected and codified body of law. Common law comes from [[England]] and was inherited by [[Commonwealth countries]], and almost every former colony of the [[British Empire]] ([[Malta]] and [[Scotland]] being exceptions). The doctrine of ''[[stare decisis]]'' or ''precedent by courts'' is the major innovation and difference to codified civil law systems.
 +
 +
Common law is currently in practice in [[Law of the Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], [[Law of the United Kingdom|United Kingdom]] (excluding Scotland), [[Law of Australia|Australia]], [[Law of India|India]], [[Law of South Africa|South Africa]], [[Law of Canada|Canada]] (excluding Quebec), and the [[Law of the United States|United States]] (excluding Louisiana) and many more places. In addition to these countries, several others have adapted the common law system into a mixed system. For example, [[Pakistan]], [[India]] and [[Nigeria]] operate largely on a common law system, but incorporate religious law.
 +
 +
In the [[European Union]] the [[Court of Justice]] takes an approach mixing civil law (based on the treaties) with an attachment to the importance of [[case law]]. One of the most fundamental documents to shape common law is the [[Magna Carta]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta|url=http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html|accessdate=2006-11-10}}</ref> which placed limits on the power of the English Kings. It served as a kind of medieval bill of rights for the aristocracy and the judiciary who developed the law.
 +
 +
{| width="100%" class="wikitable"
 +
! width="130px" |Country 
 +
! Description
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Antigua and Barbuda}} [[Law of Antigua and Barbuda|Antigua and Barbuda]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Australia}} [[Law of Australia|Australia]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Bahamas}} [[Law of Bahamas|Bahamas]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Barbados}} [[Law of Barbados|Barbados]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Belize}} [[Law of Belize|Belize]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Bhutan}} [[Laws of Bhutan|Bhutan]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Canada}} [[Law of Canada|Canada]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]], except in {{flagicon|Quebec}} [[Quebec]], where civil law system based on [[French law]] prevails
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Dominica}} [[Law of Dominica|Dominica]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|England}} {{flagicon|Wales}} [[English law|England and Wales]]<br>{{flagicon|United Kingdom}} (UK)
 +
| primarily [[common law]], with early [[Roman law|Roman]] and some modern [[Continental Europe|continental]] influences
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Fiji}} [[Law of Fiji|Fiji]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Ghana}} [[Laws of Ghana|Ghana]]
 +
|-
 +
|{{flagicon|Myanmar}} [[Law of Myanmar|Myanmar]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Grenada}} [[Law of Grenada|Grenada]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Hong Kong}} [[Legal system of Hong Kong|Hong Kong]]<br>{{flagicon|China}} ([[China]])
 +
| principally based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Republic of Ireland}} [[Law of the Republic of Ireland|Republic of Ireland]]
 +
| based on Irish law prior to 1920, which was itself based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Jamaica}} [[Law of Jamaica|Jamaica]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Kiribati}} [[Law of Kiribati|Kiribati]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Marshall Islands}} [[Law of Marshall Islands|Marshall Islands]]
 +
| based on [[U.S. Law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Nauru}} [[Law of Nauru|Nauru]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|New Zealand}} [[Law of New Zealand|New Zealand]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Northern Ireland}} [[Northern Ireland law|Northern Ireland]]<br>{{flagicon|United Kingdom}} (UK)
 +
| based on Irish law prior to 1920, which was itself based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Palau}} [[Law of Palau|Palau]]
 +
| based on [[U.S. Law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Saint Kitts and Nevis}} [[Law of Saint Kitts and Nevis|Saint Kitts and Nevis]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines}} [[Law of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Tonga}} [[Law of Tonga|Tonga]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Trinidad and Tobago}} [[Law of Trinidad and Tobago|Trinidad and Tobago]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Tuvalu}} [[Law of Tuvalu|Tuvalu]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Uganda}} [[Law of Uganda|Uganda]]
 +
| based on [[English common law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|United States}} [[United States law|United States]]
 +
| [[United States federal courts|Federal court system]] based on English common law; each [[States of the United States|state]] has its own unique legal system, of which all but one ([[Image:Flag_of_Louisiana.svg|22x20px]] [[Louisiana#Law and government|Louisiana's]], which is based on the [[Napoleonic Code]]) is based on English common law
 +
|}
 +
 +
===Religious law===
 +
 +
Religious law refers to the notion of the [[Word of God|word of God]] being a legal source. The implication of religion for law is a static and unalterable quality, precluding amendment through legislative acts of government or development through judicial precedent. The main kinds of religious law are [[Halakha]] in [[Judaism]], [[Sharia]] in [[Islam]], and [[Canon law]] in some [[Christian]] groups. In some cases these are intended purely as individual [[moral]] guidance, whereas in other cases they are intended and may be used as the basis for a country's legal system. The Halakha is followed by [[Orthodox Judaism|orthodox]] and [[Conservative Judaism|conservative]] Jews in both ecclesiastical and civil relations. No country is fully governed by Halakha, but two Jewish people may decide, because of personal belief, to have a dispute heard by a Jewish court, and be bound by its rulings. Sharia Law governs a number of Islamic countries, including [[Saudi Arabia]] and [[Iran]], though most countries use Sharia Law only as a supplement to national law. It can relate to all aspects of civil law, including property rights, contracts or public law. [[Canon law]] is not religious law, properly speaking, because it is not found in revelation.  Instead, it is seen as human law inspired by the [[Word of God|word of God]] and applying the demands of that revelation to the actual sitation of the church.  Canon law regulates the internal ordering of the [[Roman Catholic Church]], the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] and the [[Anglican Communion]].  Canon law is amended and adapted by the legislative authority of the church, such as councils of bishops, single bishops for their respective sees, the Pope for the entire Catholic Church, and the Enlish Parliament for the Church of England.
 +
 +
*{{flagicon|Afghanistan}} [[Law of Afghanistan|Afghanistan]]
 +
*{{flagicon|Iran}}  [[Law of Iran|Iran]]
 +
*{{flagicon|Saudi Arabia}}  [[Law of Saudi Arabia|Saudi Arabia]]
 +
*{{flagicon|Sudan}}  [[Law of Sudan|Sudan]]
 +
 +
===Pluralistic systems===
 +
 +
===Civil law and common law===
 +
{| width="100%" class="wikitable"
 +
|-
 +
! width="130px" |Country 
 +
! Description
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Botswana}} [[Law of Botswana|Botswana]]
 +
| South African law (a mixed system) transferred <em>uno acto</em> through a proclamation of reception
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Cameroon}} [[Laws of Cameroon|Cameroon]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Cyprus}} [[Law of Cyprus|Cyprus]]
 +
| Based on [[English common law]] (Cyprus was a British colony 1878-1960), with admixtures of French and [[Greece|Greek]] civil and public law, [[Italy|Italian]] civil law, [[India]]n contract law, [[Greek Orthodox]] canon law, [[Muslim]] religious law, and [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] civil law.
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Guyana}} [[Law of Guyana|Guyana]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Israel}} [[Law of Israel|Israel]]
 +
| Originally (1948) based on English common law; in the process, influenced by German civil law—for instance, between 1962 and 1981, the [[Knesset]] issued twenty (20) wide-ranging laws, which were clearly influenced by European continental law, and were in the form of codes
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Lesotho}} [[Law of Lesotho|Lesotho]]
 +
| South African law (a mixed system) transferred <em>uno acto</em> through a proclamation of reception
 +
|-
 +
| [[Image:Flag_of_Louisiana.svg|22x20px]] [[Law of Louisiana|Louisiana]]<br>{{flagicon|United States}} (U.S.)
 +
| Based on the French [[Napoleonic Code]]; the modern legal system of the state of [[Louisiana]] has its origin in the [[Louisiana Purchase]] (i.e. the sale of Louisiana—not coterminous with the present eponymous state—by Napoleon to the United States of America in 1803), while federal laws (based on common law) are in effect in Louisiana as well.
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Malta}} [[Law of Malta|Malta]]
 +
|Initially based on [[Roman Law]] and eventually progressed to the Code de Rohan, [[Code Napoleon]] with influences from Italian Civil Law. [[English common law]] however is also a source of Maltese Law, most notably in [[Public Law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Mauritius}} [[Law of Mauritius|Mauritius]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Namibia}} [[Law of Namibia|Namibia]]
 +
| South African law (a mixed system) transferred <em>uno acto</em> through a proclamation of reception
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Philippines}} [[Law of Philippines|Philippines]]
 +
| Based on Spanish law; influenced by U.S. common law after 1898 (victory of the U.S. over Spain in the Spanish-American war of 1898 and cession of Philippines to the U.S.)
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Puerto Rico}} [[Law of Puerto Rico|Puerto Rico]]<br>{{flagicon|United States}} (U.S.)
 +
| Based on Spanish law; influenced by U.S. common law after 1898 (victory of the U.S. over Spain in the Spanish-American war of 1898 and cession of Puerto Rico to the U.S.)
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Quebec}} [[Quebec law|Quebec]]<br>{{flagicon|Canada}} (Canada)
 +
| After the defeat of the [[France|French]] in the battle at the [[Plains of Abraham]], the [[Great Britain|British]] allowed them to keep their language ([[French language|French]]), their religion ([[Roman Catholicism]]), and their legal system ([[civil law]]). However, as [[Quebec]] is part of the Canadian Confederation, English-based laws applied at the federal level are in effect in Quebec also.
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Saint Lucia}} [[Law of Saint Lucia|Saint Lucia]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Scotland}} [[Scots law|Scotland]]<br>{{flagicon|United Kingdom}} (UK)
 +
| based on [[Roman law|Roman]] and continental law, with common law elements dating back to the [[Legal institutions of Scotland in the High Middle Ages|High Middle Ages]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Seychelles}} [[Law of Seychelles|Seychelles]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|South Africa}} [[Law of South Africa|South Africa]]
 +
| An amalgam of [[England|English]] [[common law]] and [[Roman law|Roman]]-[[Netherlands|Dutch]] [[civil law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Sri Lanka}} [[Law of Sri Lanka|Sri Lanka]]
 +
| An amalgam of [[England|English]] [[common law]], [[Roman law|Roman]]-[[Netherlands|Dutch]] [[civil law]] and [[Customary Law]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Swaziland}} [[Law of Swaziland|Swaziland]]
 +
| South African law (a mixed system) transferred <em>uno acto</em> through a proclamation of reception
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Thailand}} [[Law of Thailand|Thailand]]|-
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Vanuatu}} [[Law of Vanuatu|Vanuatu]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Zimbabwe}} [[Law of Zimbabwe|Zimbabwe]]
 +
| South African law (a mixed system) transferred <em>uno acto</em> through a proclamation of reception
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|}
 +
 +
===Civil law and religious law===
 +
{| width="100%" class="wikitable"
 +
|-
 +
! width="130px" |Country
 +
! Description
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Algeria}} [[Laws of Algeria|Algeria]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Comoros}} [[Laws of Comoros|Comoros]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Djibouti}} [[Laws of Djibouti|Djibouti]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Egypt}} [[Laws of Egypt|Egypt]]
 +
|Based on Islamic law and French civil law system
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Eritrea}} [[Laws of Eritrea|Eritrea]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Indonesia}} [[Laws of Indonesia|Indonesia]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Morocco}} [[Laws of Morocco|Morocco]]
 +
| Based on Islamic law and French and Spanish civil law system
 +
|}
 +
 +
===Common law and religious law===
 +
{| width="100%" class="wikitable"
 +
|-
 +
! width="130px"|Country
 +
! Description
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Bahrain}} [[Laws of Bahrain|Bahrain]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Bangladesh}} [[Laws of Bangladesh|Bangladesh]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Brunei}} [[Laws of Brunei|Brunei]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Gambia}} [[Laws of Gambia|Gambia]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|India}} [[Law in India|India]]
 +
| based on English common law, separate personal law codes apply to [[Muslims]], [[Christians]], and [[Hindus]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Oman}} [[Laws of Oman|Oman]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Pakistan}} [[Law of Pakistan|Pakistan]]
 +
| based on English Common Law, some [[Islamic Law]] applications in [[inheritance]]. [[Tribal Law]] in [[Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Pakistan|FATA]]
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Qatar}} [[Laws of Qatar|Qatar]]
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
| {{flagicon|Singapore}} [[Laws of Singapore|Singapore]]
 +
| based on English common law
 +
|}
 +
 +
==Bibliography==
 +
 +
* Moustaira Elina N., <em>Comparative Law: University Courses (in Greek)</em>, Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers, Athens, 2004, ISBN 960-15-1267-5
 +
* Moustaira Elina N., <em>Milestones in the Course of Comparative Law: Thesis and Antithesis (in Greek)</em>, Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers, Athens, 2003, ISBN 960-15-1097-4
 +
 +
==See also==
 +
*[[Comparative law]]
 +
*[[Socialist law]]
 +
*[[Soviet law]]
 +
*[[Tribal sovereignty]]
 +
 +
==External links==
 +
* [http://www.droitcivil.uottawa.ca/world-legal-systems/eng-monde.php World Legal Systems], Website of the Faculty of Law of the University of Ottawa
 +
* [http://ausicl.com Australian Institute of Comparative Legal Systems]
 +
*[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2100.html Factbook list of legal systems]
 +
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 09:28, 16 March 2007

World distribution of major legal traditions

The three major legal systems of the world today consist of civil law, common law and religious law. However, each country (see State (law)) often develops variations on each system or incorporates many other features into the system. Despite the usefulness of different classifications, every legal system has its own individual identity.

==Legal System in Jewish Law (for Noahides)

Rabbi Aaron Lictenstein

After discussing the Seven Laws as Categories, Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein attempts define which of the 613 laws, based on Maimonides' Book of Divine Commandments, would fall under the Noahide Imperative of Legal System and therefore apply to Noahides, he writes:[1]

Just what are the implications of the Noahide imperative on Justice (Dinim) is the subject of dispute among major authors. All agree however that the following two aspects are implied: (a) that courts shall be established and (b) that any act which contributes to an unjust court decision shall be prohibited. That these two aspects are involved derives from the Talmudic remark to the effect that justice has reference to both (a) required acts of commission and (b) prohibited acts.

The following imperatives from among the Mosaic 613 are implicit in these two aspects of the Noahic law on justice:

1. ". . . to appoint judges and officers in each and every community." Positive 176.

2. . . . to treat the litigants equally before the law." Positive 177.

3. ". . . to inquire diligently into the testimony of a witness." Positive 179.

4. ". . . against the wanton miscarriage of justice by the court." Negative 273.

5. ". . . against the judge accepting a bribe or gift from a litigant." Negative 274.

6. ". . . against the judge showing marks of honor to but one litigant." Negative 275.

7. ". . . against the judge acting in fear of a litigant's threats." Negative 276.

8. ". . . against the judge, out of compassion, favoring a poor litigant." Negative 277.

9. ". . . against the judge discriminating against the litigant because he is a sinner." Negative 278.

10. ". . . against the judge, out of softness, putting aside the penalty of a mauler or killer." Negative 279.

11. ". . . against the judge discriminating against a stranger or an orphan." Negative 280.

12. ". . . against the judge hearing one litigant in the absence of the other." Negative 281.

13. ". . . against appointing a judge who lacks knowledge of the Law." Negative 284.

14. ". . . against the court killing an innocent man." Negative 289.

15. ". . . against incrimination by circumstantial evidence." Negative 290.

16. ". . . against punishing for a crime committed under duress." Negative 294.

17. ". . . that the court is to administer the death penalty by the sword [i.e., decapitation]." Positive 226.

18. ". . . against anyone taking the law into his own hands to kill the perpetrator of a capital crime." Negative 292.

19. ". . . to testify in court." Positive 178.

20. against testifying falsely." Negative 285.

Thus, twenty from among the Mosaic 613 have application for the Noahite under Justice. According to Maimonides – and most writers probably would side with him - Justice purports nothing more than the spirit of these twenty items. However, Nahmanides (Ramban) objects. He views justice as signifying much more. Nahmanides begins his statement of view by quoting a comment by Maimonides concerning the destruction of the city of Shechern by Simon and Levi in retaliation for the rape of their sister at the hands of the city's favorite son, in the 34th chapter of Genesis:

The Master [Maimonides] explains in his volume on judges [Code, "Laws for Kings" 9:14], that since Noahites are charged with upholding justice - meaning that they must appoint judges who are to rule on their [remaining] six laws in each and every town - and, furthermore, since a Noahite who violates any one of his laws is to be executed by the sword, therefore all citizens of Shechern were fit to die, because Shechern [the son] stole and they all saw and knew it but they did not bring him to justice.

I do not think this explanation is correct. For if so, then their father, Jacob, should have been under obligation to assume a leading role in the executions; and if he was afraid why did he wax angry at his sons to the extent that long after he cursed their fury, he punished them, and he scattered them. Had they not done a good thing, having had faith in the Lord and He granted them success?

Anyway, to my mind, this justice which is enumerated among the Seven Laws of Noah is not limited to the establishment of courts. Rather, it charges the Noahites with laws on stealing, overcharging, withholding salaries, the liability of watchmen, rape, seduction, damages, bodily injury, loans, business transactions, and the like, similar to the laws with which the Israelites are charged. Thus, they place themselves under threat of execution by stealing, or cheating, or raping, or seducing another's daughter, or burning down another's silo, or injuring him, and the like. It is this same law that also obligates them to appoint judges in each town, like the Israelites. However, if they neglect to do this they are not to be executed, because this derives from a positive imperative, and the rule of "Their prohibition [when violated, constitutes grounds for] their execution," applies only for the negative imperatives . . . .

In the above, Nahmanides ascribes to justice a compilation of statutes which directs the judge in making the appropriate decision in every case of "stealing ... rape ... bodily injury ... business transactions, and the like." In other words, the Noahic category of justice alludes to an actual code of law.

Most of the statutes to which Nahmanides refers are designated Positive 236 through Positive 246. Would Nahmanides, then, have us add Positive 236 - Positive 246 (and similar statutes) to the twenty listed above? No, for the following reason: When Nahmanides writes "similar to the laws with which the Israelite are charged," he does not mean that the Noahide laws here are the same as the corresponding Israelite laws. He cannot mean this because the talmudic sources specifically differentiate between Noahic and Mosaic law in the very cases Nahmanides enumerates. What Nahmanides must mean is that just as the Israelite code has a definite ruling for each civil dispute, "similarly" the Noahide tradition has a definite – but not necessarily an identical - ruling. That is to say, Noahide justice does not leave it for each judge or government to develop original principles of equity; rather, a set of such principles are part and parcel of Noahism, under Justice. This idea is further developed, and extended, by Moses Isserles (circa 1500) who reads this very issue into a talmudic argument:

... Rabbi Johanan, [in Sanhedrin 56b,] maintains that Noahites are compelled, under the requirements of justice, merely to uphold the national customs, and to judge between man and man fairly. But Noahites are not compelled to be in consonance with Israel's law, bequeathed by the hands of Moses at Sinai, because Noahic law is purely a law of social accord ... the statutes of Israel are one thing and the statutes of Noah are another.

However, Rabbi Isaac has a different approach. He maintains [ibid.] that Noahic Justice involves the very law which Jews were bequeathed at Sinai ... and it seems to me that the opinion of Rabbi Isaac prevails, because . . . .

Here again caution should be exercised not to misread Isserles to mean that all Noahic and Sinaitic laws are identical, and Isserles himself goes on to make mention of some aspects wherein the two systems differ. Still Isserles, more so than is apparent from the words of Nahmanides, sees the two systems as having a great deal in common. For according to Isserles, the civil laws of the two systems differ only where the Talmudic sources explicitly note the dissimilarity, "but otherwise one should not presume to exclude the Noahite from Mosaic principles."

Maimonides would not necessarily dispute Nahmanides' assertion that Noahide Justice has reference to an actual tradition of specific rulings. Isserles surely sees it this way, for in his essay he quotes Maimonides extensively in search of support for the thesis that justice embodies an actual code. Where Maimonides does differ with Nahmanides is that the latter maintains that it is justice which alludes to a compilation of all Noahide regulations, whereas Maimonides simply sees in each of the Seven Laws an implicit expression of that part of the Noahide law with which it is concerned. That is, the laws on homicide are implicit in the category of Homicide; the laws on stealing - which are what Nahmanides largely deals with there - are implicit in Theft, not justice.

Surely Maimonides' position is a logical one. Furthermore, what significant difference does Nahmanides see between theoretically considering justice the depository of all the laws, and theoretically considering these laws as implicit within each of the various sections? A second question that Nahmanides would have to answer is: if justice "charges the Noahites with laws on stealing" etc., why is the category of Theft required at all?

In the view of these questions, the statement and position of Nahmanides are best understood as follows:

The one part of Maimonides' statement to which Nahmanides objects strongly is the assertion that there can be prosecution by the court for neglect to bring a wrongdoer to justice. Nahmanides argues that such neglect - it being a crime of omission - does not invite punitive action. And yet, Nahmanides is hard put to explain away the implication that each one of all the Seven Laws calls for punitive action, because the Talmud makes no distinctions when it states, "Their prohibition [when violated, constitutes sufficient grounds for] their execution. Rav Huna and Rav Judah and all the students of Rav say, 'For each of the Seven Laws a Noahite may be executed.' " And while Nahmanides might defend himself by noting that when justice is violated via an act of commission – such as when a judge accepts a bribe - punitive action does properly apply, still Nahmanides would have to take into account that this case (the transgression of justice via an act of commission) is conceived by the Talmud as being but a concomitant of justice and not its primary aspect.

It is this difficulty which Nahmanides is intent upon eluding when he designates the primary aspect of justice a code, an entity, a body of statutes, and consequently neither acts of commission nor acts of omission. Instead, these positive and negative aspects are outgrowths of the code and are equally basic; therefore it is not strange that the Talmud ascribes court penalties to all the Seven Laws, Justice included.

This then is the answer to the first question raised above. (Namely, what significant difference does Nahmanides see between theoretically considering justice the depository of all the laws, and theoretically considering these laws as implicit within each of the various sections?) Nahmanides attaches no significance to this theoretical difference and he disputes Maimonides in this connection only in the effort to defend his main argument: that neglect to bring a wrongdoer to justice is not a punishable offense. The two issues dovetail, as seen above.

Nahmanides may have felt especially secure in this view because the word Dinim - which in keeping with accepted usage is translated here as justice - is markedly unlike the other six terms which the Talmud has coined. The other six conjure up an activity, such as theft, illicit relations, blasphemy, etc., and evidently the point is to tag each activity either desirable or immoral. But the term Dinim translated precisely is "Laws"; whereas pursuing justice is best denoted by the term Mishpat. So that Maimonides would be under obligation to explain the substitution of Dinim for Mishpat. However in Nahmanides' view Dinim is just that: a group of laws.

Turning now to the second question which was directed at Nahmanides (namely, why after justice is Theft needed at all?) one achieves the following understanding:

Theft serves to tag stealing as being immoral, so that every man of -honor will avoid it, even when the theft will never come to light and no charges will be pressed. This parallels the remaining five Noahic laws which are designed to, inform the individual of the evil inherent in those acts. (In religious terms, these acts are thereby proclaimed to be sins.) The seventh law, Dinim, features a different dimension however. It instructs society, as represented by the court, on how to regulate and process any breach of these standards. In other words, Dinim is procedural law, while Theft is substantive Iaw.

One additional point should be granted so as to put our understanding of Nahmanides on solid ground. Nahmanides considers Dinim the procedural law of all the Laws of Noah, not only of Theft. Of course, this assumption may seem strange because all the examples of procedural law mentioned by Nahmanides pertain to Theft. Still, Nahmanides might have limited his examples to Theft because the case under discussion there - the abduction of Dinah - pertains to Theft. At any rate, if one does not grant that Dinim for Nahmanides contains the whole of Noahic procedural law, one would be putting Nahmanides in the position of having to explain away why the substantive and the procedural aspects of Theft were given separate categories, whereas each of the remaining laws have their procedural and substantive aspects grouped together. For no one can doubt that there are procedural aspects to the remaining five laws, and Nahmanides clearly accepts the initial statement of Maimonides that "Noahites are charged with upholding justice - meaning that they must appoint judges who are to rule on their [remaining] six laws…"

In sum, the Nahmanides argument, as expressed in the paragraph quoted earlier, runs as follows:

Anyway, to my mind, this justice ... is not limited to the establishment of courts.

Maimonides thinks that in the category of Justice there can be punishment for a crime of omission - although he surely agrees that this would not be possible in the other six categories or in Mosaic law - because he thinks that justice is essentially a requirement to establish courts and therefore the punishable violation of this requirement is necessarily an act of omission. Nahmanides however thinks justice is essentially another thing:

Rather, it charges the Noahites with laws on stealing, overcharging, withholding salaries, the liability of watchmen, rape, seduction, damages, bodily injury, loans, business transactions, and the like ....

Justice, says Nahmanides, is a complete code of law, which is directed at the court, and which has in it everything the court must know in the realm of civil law ("loans, business transactions, and the like"), in the realm of criminal law ("stealing, overcharging, withholding salaries") which spill over from the area of Theft, and in the realm of the other criminal areas: Homicide, Illicit Intercourse, Blasphemy, Idolatry, and Limb of a Living Creature.

Thus, they place themselves under threat of execution by stealing, or cheating, or raping, or seducing another's daughter, or burning down another's silo, or injuring him, and the like. It is this same Law that also obligates them to appoint judges …

Having stated that justice embodies all Noahic procedural law, Nahmanides reasons as follows: Whenever the court undertakes punitive action against a citizen, it makes no difference whether the action stems from a violation of Theft ("stealing, cheating") or a violation of justice ("appoint judges") as far as basic procedure is concerned, because all Noahic procedure has a single source, Justice. Consequently, it would be incomprehensible to proceed for a crime of omission under justice, when it is clear that one does not proceed for a crime of omission under Theft or Blasphemy, etc. Thus Nahmanicles concludes:

However, if they neglect to do this [to appoint judges] they are not to be executed ....

Before leaving the text of Nahmanides, note should be taken that all the following were considered instances of Theft: "stealing, or cheating, or raping, or seducing another's daughter, or burning down another's silo, or injuring him…" Rape, where no violation of Illicit Intercourse is involved, is still Theft in that the use of a person's body is his prerogative as much as is the use of his property. In including seducing another's daughter, Nahmanides goes on to assume that the consent of a minor is disregarded and that the father has control over the property rights of his underage daughter, this being the case in Jewish law. In mentioning burning down another's silo or injuring him, Nahmanides reasons that under Theft it is not essential for the thief to take the property unto himself, but that the essential element in Theft lies in depriving the owner of his property. Note that of the four categories of torts listed in the first Mishna. of Baba Kama as the Goring Ox, the Pit, the Eating Animal, and the Fire, Nahmanides singles out the Fire and makes no mention of the remaining three. Seemingly, the remaining three were left out intentionally and for this reason: The Fire may conceivably be grouped under Theft because the setting of the fire may be considered a criminal act. The other three, however, may not be grouped under Theft because here the liability accrues from the mere neglect to act in preventing the public's property and one's own destructive property from coming into contact. And while such neglect gives a plaintiff sufficient grounds for filing a civil suit to recover damages, it does not render the defendant a criminal under Theft, there not being the required commission of a criminal act. Thus, in singling out the Fire, Nahmanides is reiterating his central contention in the dispute with Maimonicles, namely, that the neglect to appoint judges does not invite criminal punishment, for one can technically become a criminal only by committing a definite act.

That Justice should be thought of as referring to a thorough going system containing points of law, as Nahmanides and Isserles see it, is denied by at least one early author. Jacob Anatoli (1194-1256) expresses the view, in his Hamelamed, that the Noahide tradition does not feature a comprehensive code of standard regulations under Justice. Anatoli writes:

When the Noahites were enjoined concerning Justice, they were put under obligation to create legal arrangements .... It is incumbent on the judges to draw up rules of equity that shall be appropriate for that particular country, as exemplified by the manner in which this matter is handled currently by the nations, severally. Likewise, it is incumbent upon merchants and upon the members of the trades to establish regulations for themselves... and whatever emerges as the law in this manner is law, as much as that which is written in the Bible. Furthermore, anyone violating this law violates Scripture, because Scripture commands the individual to accept the decisions of the contemporary jurists. The dictum, "The law of the land is the Law," relates to this concept.

Nonetheless, Anatoli could agree to the inclusion of the twenty imperatives which are listed above as features of Noahide Justice. For these twenty are but manifestations of those two aspects by which the talmudic sources define Justice, (a) that courts shall be established and (b) that any act which contributes to an unjust decision be prohibited.


Rabbi Yoel Schwartz (Jerusalem Court for Bnei Noah)

BDBN.gif

It is important to form courts of justice so that persons can be called upon to uphold the mitzvot, the religious laws and to be able to judge between people. Sages were divided as to whether the Noahides should be judged according to the Torah concerning financial matters or whether they should be judged according to common sense. It is worthwhile that such courts of justice should give sentences according to the same law for men and for women. The judges should be men since a woman should strive not to be involved in public matters. Every person should go to a court for justice and not try to mete out justice himself. Courts of justice are allowed to enforce regulations for the benefit of the society and to improve ethics and morality. It is the obligation of the Noahide to execute justice to the fullest degree and not to be merciful to criminals. People have the obligation to obey the law and see that the legislative and judicial and personnel and systems obey the law.[2]

Legal System in Noahide Law

World distribution of major legal traditions

The three major legal systems of the world today consist of civil law, common law and religious law. However, each country (see State (law)) often develops variations on each system or incorporates many other features into the system. Despite the usefulness of different classifications, every legal system has its own individual identity.


Civil law

Civil law is the most widespread system of law in the world. It is also known as European Continental law. The central source of law that is recognised as authoritative are codifications in a constitution or statute passed by government, to amend a code. Civil law systems mainly derive from the Roman Empire, and more particularly, the Corpus Juris Civilis issued by the Emperor Justinian ca. 529AD. This was an extensive reform of the law in the Eastern Empire, bringing it together into codified documents. Civil law today, in theory, is interpreted rather than developed or made by judges. Only legislative enactments (rather than judicial precedents) are considered legally binding. However, in reality courts do pay attention to previous decisions, especially from higher courts.

Scholars of comparative law and economists promoting the legal origins theory usually subdivide civil law into three distinct groups:

A comprehensive list of countries that base their legal system on a codified civil law follows:

Country Description
Template:Flagicon Albania The Civil Code of the Republic of Albania, 1991 really[1]
Template:Flagicon Angola Based on Portuguese civil law
Template:Flagicon Argentina The Spanish legal tradition had a great influence on the Civil Code of Argentina, basically a work of the Argentinean jurist Dalmacio Vélez Sársfield, who dedicated five years of his life on this task. The Civil Code came into effect on January 1, 1871. Beyond the influence of the Spanish legal tradition, the Argentinian Civil Code was also inspired by the Draft of the Brazilian Civil Code, the Draft of the Spanish Civil Code of 1851, the Napoleonic code and the Chilean Civil Code. The sources of this Civil Code also include various theoretical legal works, mainly of the great French jurists of the 19th century. It was the first Civil Law that consciously adopted as its cornerstone the distinction between i. rights from obligations and ii. real property rights, thus distancing itself from the French model.

The Argentinian Civil Code was also in effect in Paraguay, as per a Paraguayan law of 1880, until the new Civil Code went in force in 1987.

During the second half of the 20th century, the German legal theory became increasingly influential in Argentina.

Template:Flagicon Andorra Courts apply the customary laws of Andorra, supplemented with Roman law and customary Catalan law.[3]
Template:Flagicon Armenia
Template:Flagicon Aruba Based on Dutch civil law
Template:Flagicon Austria The Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (ABGB) of 1811
Template:Flagicon Azerbaijan
Template:Flagicon Belarus
Template:Flagicon Belgium Influenced by the Napoleonic Code
Template:Flagicon Benin
Template:Flagicon Bolivia Influenced by the Napoleonic Code
Template:Flagicon Bosnia and Herzegovina
Template:Flagicon Brazil Derived from the Portuguese civil law
Template:Flagicon Bulgaria
Template:Flagicon Burkina Faso
Template:Flagicon Burundi
Template:Flagicon Chad
Template:Flagicon People's Republic of China based on civil law system; derived from Soviet and continental civil code legal principles.
Template:Flagicon Republic of the Congo
Template:Flagicon Democratic Republic of the Congo
Template:Flagicon Cote d'Ivoire
Template:Flagicon Cambodia
Template:Flagicon Cape Verde Based on Portuguese civil law
Template:Flagicon Central African Republic
Template:Flagicon Chile The Spanish legal tradition exercised an especially great influence on the civil code of Chile. On its turn, the Chilean civil code influenced to a large degree the drafting of the civil codes of other Latin-American states. For instance, the codes of Ecuador (1861) and Colombia (1873) constituted faithful reproductions of the Chilean code, but for very few exceptions. The compiler of the Civil Code of Chile, Andrés Bello, worked for its completion for almost 30 years, using elements, of the Spanish law on the one hand, and of other Western laws, especially of the French one, on the other. Indeed, it is noted that he consulted and used all of the codes that had been issued till then, starting from the era of Justinian.

The Civil Code came into effect on January 1, 1857. Its technique is regarded as perfect; it is distinguished for the clarity, logic and cohesiveness of its provisions. As mentioned by Arminjon, Nolde, and Wolff ('Traite de droit comparé', Paris, 1950-1952) Andrés Bello may be regarded as one of the great legislators of mankind. The influence of the Napoleonic code is great; it is observed however that e.g. in many provisions of property law, the solutions of the French code civil were put aside in favor of pure Roman law.

Template:Flagicon Colombia Civil code introduced in 1873. Nearly faithful reproduction of the Chilean civil code
Template:Flagicon Costa Rica Influenced by the Napoleonic Code
Template:Flagicon CroatiaKazneni zakon RH- Great influence of Austro- Hungarian law system
Template:Flagicon Cuba Influenced by Spanish and American law with large elements of Communist legal theory.
Template:Flagicon Czech Republic
Template:Flagicon Denmark Scandinavian-German civil law
Template:Flagicon Dominican Republic
Template:Flagicon Ecuador Civil code introduced in 1861. Nearly faithful reproduction of the Chilean civil code
Template:Flagicon El Salvador
Template:Flagicon Estonia
Template:Flagicon Finland
Template:Flagicon France Based on the Napoleonic code (code civil of 1804)
Template:Flagicon Equatorial Guinea
Template:Flagicon Ethiopia
Template:Flagicon Gabon
Template:Flagicon Guinea
Template:Flagicon Guinea-Bissau
Template:Flagicon Georgia
Template:Flagicon Germany The Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch of 1900
Template:Flagicon Greece The Greek civil code of 1946, highly influenced by the German civil code of 1900 (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch); the Greek civil code replaced the Byzantine-Roman civil law in effect in Greece since its independence (Νομική Διάταξη της Ανατολικής Χέρσου Ελλάδος, Legal Provision of Eastern Mainland Greece, November 1821: 'Οι Κοινωνικοί Νόμοι των Αειμνήστων Χριστιανών Αυτοκρατόρων της Ελλάδος μόνοι ισχύουσι κατά το παρόν εις την Ανατολικήν Χέρσον Ελλάδα', 'The Social [i.e. Civil] Laws of the Dear Departed Christian Emperors of Greece [referring to the Byzantine Emperors] alone are in effect at present in Eastern Mainland Greece')
Template:Flagicon Guatemala
Template:Flagicon Haiti Influenced by the Napoleonic Code
Template:Flagicon Honduras
Template:Flagicon Hungary
Template:Flagicon Iceland Based on Germanic traditional laws and influenced by Medieval Norwegian and Danish laws.
Template:Flagicon Italy Based on codified Roman law, with elements of the Napoleonic civil code; civil code of 1942 replaced the original one of 1865
Template:Flagicon Japan Modeled after European (primarily German) civil law system. Japanese civil code of 1895.
Template:Flagicon Latvia Largely influenced by Germany, medium influences from Russian and Soviet law.
Template:Flagicon Lebanon Modeled after French civil law
Template:Flagicon Lithuania Modeled after Dutch civil law
Template:Flagicon Luxembourg Influenced by the Napoleonic Code
Template:Flagicon Macau
Template:Flagicon (China)
Based on the Portuguese strand of the continental tradition, itself much influenced by Germany; also influenced by the law of the PRC
Template:Flagicon Mexico "The origins of Mexico's legal system are both ancient and classical, based on the Greek, Roman and French legal systems, and the Mexican system shares more in common with other legal systems throughout the world (especially those in Latin America and most of continental Europe)..." From: http://www.mexonline.com/lawreview.htm Jaime B. Berger Stender Attorney at Law author, Tijuana, B.C., Mexico
Template:Flagicon Mongolia
Template:Flagicon Netherlands Influenced by the Napoleonic Code
Template:Flagicon Norway Scandinavian-German civil law
Template:Flagicon Panama
Template:Flagicon Paraguay The Paraguayan Civil Code in force since 1987 is largely influenced by the Napoleonic Code and the Argentinian Code
Template:Flagicon Peru
Template:Flagicon Poland The Polish Civil Code in force since 1965
Template:Flagicon Portugal Influenced by the Napoleonic Code and later by the German Civil Law
Template:Flagicon Republic of China (Taiwan)
Template:Flagicon Romania Based on the Napoleonic Code
Template:Flagicon Russia
Template:Flagicon Slovakia
Template:Flagicon Spain Influenced by the Napoleonic Code
Template:Flagicon Sweden Scandinavian-German civil law. Like all Scandinavian legal systems, it is distinguished by its traditional character and for the fact that it did not adopt elements of Roman law. It is indeed worth mentioning that it assimilated very few elements of foreign laws whatsoever. It is also interesting that the Napoleonic Code had no influence in codification of law in Scandinavia. The historical basis of the law of Sweden, just as for all Nordic countries, is the Old German law. Codification of the law started in Sweden during the 18th century, preceding the codifications of most other European countries. However, neither Sweden, nor any other Nordic state created a civil code of the kind of the Code Civil or the BGB.
Template:Flagicon Switzerland The Zivilgesetzbuch of 1908 and 1912 (obligations; fifth book)
Template:Flagicon Turkey Modeled after the Swiss civil law (Zivilgesetzbuch) of 1907; this has been a conscious choice of Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the modern Turkish state, in order to abolish the Islamic law (Sharia), aiming at westernizing the country
Template:Flagicon Slovakia
Template:Flagicon Uruguay
Template:Flagicon Vatican City
Template:Flagicon Vietnam Communist legal theory and French civil law

Common law

Main article: Common law
King John of England signs the Magna Carta

Common law and equity are systems of law whose sources are the decisions in cases by judges. Alongside, every system will have a legislature that passes new laws and statutes, however these do not amend a collected and codified body of law. Common law comes from England and was inherited by Commonwealth countries, and almost every former colony of the British Empire (Malta and Scotland being exceptions). The doctrine of stare decisis or precedent by courts is the major innovation and difference to codified civil law systems.

Common law is currently in practice in Ireland, United Kingdom (excluding Scotland), Australia, India, South Africa, Canada (excluding Quebec), and the United States (excluding Louisiana) and many more places. In addition to these countries, several others have adapted the common law system into a mixed system. For example, Pakistan, India and Nigeria operate largely on a common law system, but incorporate religious law.

In the European Union the Court of Justice takes an approach mixing civil law (based on the treaties) with an attachment to the importance of case law. One of the most fundamental documents to shape common law is the Magna Carta[4] which placed limits on the power of the English Kings. It served as a kind of medieval bill of rights for the aristocracy and the judiciary who developed the law.

Country Description
Template:Flagicon Antigua and Barbuda based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Australia based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Bahamas based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Barbados based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Belize based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Bhutan
Template:Flagicon Canada based on English common law, except in Template:Flagicon Quebec, where civil law system based on French law prevails
Template:Flagicon Dominica based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Template:Flagicon England and Wales
Template:Flagicon (UK)
primarily common law, with early Roman and some modern continental influences
Template:Flagicon Fiji based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Ghana
Template:Flagicon Myanmar based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Grenada based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Hong Kong
Template:Flagicon (China)
principally based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Republic of Ireland based on Irish law prior to 1920, which was itself based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Jamaica based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Kiribati based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Marshall Islands based on U.S. Law
Template:Flagicon Nauru based on English common law
Template:Flagicon New Zealand based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Northern Ireland
Template:Flagicon (UK)
based on Irish law prior to 1920, which was itself based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Palau based on U.S. Law
Template:Flagicon Saint Kitts and Nevis based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Tonga based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Trinidad and Tobago based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Tuvalu based on English common law
Template:Flagicon Uganda based on English common law
Template:Flagicon United States Federal court system based on English common law; each state has its own unique legal system, of which all but one (22x20px Louisiana's, which is based on the Napoleonic Code) is based on English common law

Religious law

Religious law refers to the notion of the word of God being a legal source. The implication of religion for law is a static and unalterable quality, precluding amendment through legislative acts of government or development through judicial precedent. The main kinds of religious law are Halakha in Judaism, Sharia in Islam, and Canon law in some Christian groups. In some cases these are intended purely as individual moral guidance, whereas in other cases they are intended and may be used as the basis for a country's legal system. The Halakha is followed by orthodox and conservative Jews in both ecclesiastical and civil relations. No country is fully governed by Halakha, but two Jewish people may decide, because of personal belief, to have a dispute heard by a Jewish court, and be bound by its rulings. Sharia Law governs a number of Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, though most countries use Sharia Law only as a supplement to national law. It can relate to all aspects of civil law, including property rights, contracts or public law. Canon law is not religious law, properly speaking, because it is not found in revelation. Instead, it is seen as human law inspired by the word of God and applying the demands of that revelation to the actual sitation of the church. Canon law regulates the internal ordering of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion. Canon law is amended and adapted by the legislative authority of the church, such as councils of bishops, single bishops for their respective sees, the Pope for the entire Catholic Church, and the Enlish Parliament for the Church of England.

Pluralistic systems

Civil law and common law

Country Description
Template:Flagicon Botswana South African law (a mixed system) transferred uno acto through a proclamation of reception
Template:Flagicon Cameroon
Template:Flagicon Cyprus Based on English common law (Cyprus was a British colony 1878-1960), with admixtures of French and Greek civil and public law, Italian civil law, Indian contract law, Greek Orthodox canon law, Muslim religious law, and Ottoman civil law.
Template:Flagicon Guyana
Template:Flagicon Israel Originally (1948) based on English common law; in the process, influenced by German civil law—for instance, between 1962 and 1981, the Knesset issued twenty (20) wide-ranging laws, which were clearly influenced by European continental law, and were in the form of codes
Template:Flagicon Lesotho South African law (a mixed system) transferred uno acto through a proclamation of reception
22x20px Louisiana
Template:Flagicon (U.S.)
Based on the French Napoleonic Code; the modern legal system of the state of Louisiana has its origin in the Louisiana Purchase (i.e. the sale of Louisiana—not coterminous with the present eponymous state—by Napoleon to the United States of America in 1803), while federal laws (based on common law) are in effect in Louisiana as well.
Template:Flagicon Malta Initially based on Roman Law and eventually progressed to the Code de Rohan, Code Napoleon with influences from Italian Civil Law. English common law however is also a source of Maltese Law, most notably in Public Law
Template:Flagicon Mauritius
Template:Flagicon Namibia South African law (a mixed system) transferred uno acto through a proclamation of reception
Template:Flagicon Philippines Based on Spanish law; influenced by U.S. common law after 1898 (victory of the U.S. over Spain in the Spanish-American war of 1898 and cession of Philippines to the U.S.)
Template:Flagicon Puerto Rico
Template:Flagicon (U.S.)
Based on Spanish law; influenced by U.S. common law after 1898 (victory of the U.S. over Spain in the Spanish-American war of 1898 and cession of Puerto Rico to the U.S.)
Template:Flagicon Quebec
Template:Flagicon (Canada)
After the defeat of the French in the battle at the Plains of Abraham, the British allowed them to keep their language (French), their religion (Roman Catholicism), and their legal system (civil law). However, as Quebec is part of the Canadian Confederation, English-based laws applied at the federal level are in effect in Quebec also.
Template:Flagicon Saint Lucia
Template:Flagicon Scotland
Template:Flagicon (UK)
based on Roman and continental law, with common law elements dating back to the High Middle Ages
Template:Flagicon Seychelles
Template:Flagicon South Africa An amalgam of English common law and Roman-Dutch civil law
Template:Flagicon Sri Lanka An amalgam of English common law, Roman-Dutch civil law and Customary Law
Template:Flagicon Swaziland South African law (a mixed system) transferred uno acto through a proclamation of reception
Template:Flagicon Thailand|-
Template:Flagicon Vanuatu
Template:Flagicon Zimbabwe South African law (a mixed system) transferred uno acto through a proclamation of reception

Civil law and religious law

Country Description
Template:Flagicon Algeria
Template:Flagicon Comoros
Template:Flagicon Djibouti
Template:Flagicon Egypt Based on Islamic law and French civil law system
Template:Flagicon Eritrea
Template:Flagicon Indonesia
Template:Flagicon Morocco Based on Islamic law and French and Spanish civil law system

Common law and religious law

Country Description
Template:Flagicon Bahrain
Template:Flagicon Bangladesh
Template:Flagicon Brunei
Template:Flagicon Gambia
Template:Flagicon India based on English common law, separate personal law codes apply to Muslims, Christians, and Hindus
Template:Flagicon Oman
Template:Flagicon Pakistan based on English Common Law, some Islamic Law applications in inheritance. Tribal Law in FATA
Template:Flagicon Qatar
Template:Flagicon Singapore based on English common law

Bibliography

  • Moustaira Elina N., Comparative Law: University Courses (in Greek), Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers, Athens, 2004, ISBN 960-15-1267-5
  • Moustaira Elina N., Milestones in the Course of Comparative Law: Thesis and Antithesis (in Greek), Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers, Athens, 2003, ISBN 960-15-1097-4

See also

External links


References

  1. Lichtenstein, Aaron. "The Seven Laws of Noah". New York: The Rabbi Jacob Joseph School Press and Z. Berman Books, 2d ed. 1986
  2. Noahide Commandments by Rabbi Yoel Schwartz, Translated by Yitzhak A. Oked Sechter, Reviewed and corrected by Yechiel Sitzman in consultation with Rabbi Yoel Schwartz
  3. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3164.htm
  4. {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}