A very biased and simplistic presentation. Some corrections : * Judges are not always elected in common law countries (only in the US, I believe) * Civil law is not produced by the government but the Parliament, which in democracies is elected by the people (therefore, civil law is more democratic than common law because unelected and unaccountable judges do not hold such an important power) * Civil law judges cannot refuse to rule on a case, even if there is no specific statute on the subject, that would be a denial of justice (see art. 4 of the French civil code for an example) * Finally you did not adress the issue of the accessibility of the law : in France, I can find all the legal codes online on "Légifrance", well organised and structured. Is something like that possible under common law ?
She’s from the US, where “the government” basically means “the state” (or more specifically the legislating and administrative entities of it, or even more specifically, the national government). For the executive we use “administration”. One can see this in the graphics used in US news coverage. Whenever “the government” is talked about, they will often use pictures of the building of the relevant agency or their employees working. Whenever “the gov’t” is talked about in Canada they’ll use images of the PM and members of their cabinet.
I think its a bit too simplistic to say that common law is from the people while civil law is from the government. First of the court system is obviously a branch of government, and there aren`t many countires where judges are elected by the people. Civil law on the other hand usually comes from a democratically elected legislative branch, which one could argue is "from the people" to a much higher degree then common law. Not a very good presentation.
This is a very simplistic view of civil law. In most civil places, the top courts (appellate, supreme or constitutional) have a certain amount of authority and their decisions are de facto precedents. Very rarely does a judge not decide a case because "there is no law". While yes, in theory, there's no such thing as a precedent in civil law, in practice there is. It's just that civil law judges are more constrained by codified law than common law judges are. Civil law judges also make decisions that cover new and uncodified areas of law, but since they cannot argue by equity alone, they have to be a bit more creative with their reasoning. In the German legal tradition (more specifically Austrian, but followed by Germany), judges can even strike down constitutional amendments deemed incompatible with the core values of the constitution - this is something unheard of in common law. So civil law judges wield even more power sometimes ;)
@@Meta_Myself it's pretty difficult as amending the constitution is a much bigger deal than amending any rule or act. Usually in civil countries constitution are amended by gaining a majority in the legislature of the country.
@3:22 the speaker claims that common law is based on the power of the people, as opposed to civil law countries - this is strictly incorrect. Judges being appointed by the people in common law countries does not mean that people have more power - I would argue the opposite, the government in civil law countries are representing the people and the laws they pass should be followed - not changed by local judges. Instead in civil law countries the law is the law, not what the judge claims to be the law, furthermore in the Scandinavian courts we have ley judges that are chosen by the local political parties, meaning they are indeed chosen by the people - and they will affect the course of the case, meaning they have power - just not the power to CHANGE legislation. This video is extremely biased in favor of common law countries, some nuance should have been put into this before claiming such things.
I think one upside of civil law is that it doesn't rely on a "jury of peers", and cases are decided by judges based on codified law, and not put up to the "popularity contest" of a jury trial that American court movies capitalize on so well... there is way less drama in a civil court. The video so blatantly biased towards common law, present so simplistic a view, it hurts.
@@stormwater8986 because random people from the streets don't know law, are not trained to be as unbiased as possible or to even be logical, and they don't have to explain their decisions.
@@stormwater8986If you’re referring to criminal law, most judges actually do have protocols laid out in the code of criminal procedure for mitigating punishment, and it’s up to the judge to apply this or not. Also a jury of peers is a thing in some civil law countries, for example in my country the highest criminal court is called the court of assizes, and here a jury if peers is required
The juge of civil law cannot actually refuse to adjudicate under penalty of being guilty of a denial of justice They would have to interpret the law, presume the intention of the parties, recourse to general principles etc...
Almost all the countries in the middle east adopt CIVIL law system, when the French occupied Egypt it established its legal system and consequently it spread in the majority of the middle eastern countries, it would be nice if you made more research about it because it is history.
Someone should point out that the intentions/actions of gov't can only be presumed innocent for as long as they rely primarily on the consent of those affected. Yet your consent is irrelevant, much like that of a slave. that's all one needs to realise to know everything else is an esoteric illusion, to conceal their crimes against humanity.
Canada has provinces that use each of common law or civil law. The difference to the citizen is negligible. It really just boils down to how lawyers make their arguments.
The other thing about us is that our provincial court judges are not elected. I think elected judges is really an American invention. No other Commonwealth country use elected judges. That system was conceived with good intentions but elected judges may not give out the fairest ruling due to their need to pander. The judicial system should not be political.
Are these differences applicable in everyday civil/criminal court? Or is it only applicable in cases where there has been some constitutional violation? I ask because she keeps saying "the judge decides X," so I'm assuming she's referring to a scenario with no jury
This video utterly fails in its explanation of civil law from the very beginning. Civil law is based on legislation created by Congress, and Congress is elected by the people. No government official can write and create laws at will. The Constitution clearly states that the people hold constitutional power, and this power is delegated to Congress when it is elected by the people.
DROIT CIVIL: Origine de la source se trouve dans le droit romain. Principale source du droit est la loi, les normes constitutives du jus commun de texte législatif. Le raisonnement a tendance à être déductif et syllogistique. La systématisation du droit, liée à d’intelligibilité et d’accessibilité du droit, et les processus de codification. Modèle inquisitoire, où un juge ou un magistrat recherche activement la preuve. COMMON LAW: Origines de cette tradition se trouvent dans le droit coutumier anglais médiéval. La principale source du droit, constitutive du jus commun, est la jurisprudence. Le raisonnement a tendance à être inductif et casuistique. Common Law a tendance à avoir un système judiciaire unifié avec des tribunaux compétents pour entendre toutes sortes de différends, qu’ils soient civils, administratifs, criminels....etc. Modèle preuve et procédure, qui joue dans cette tradition un rôle crucial, est fondé sur un modèle accusatoire où les parties en litige contrôlent elles-mêmes une bonne partie du processus.
I wonder if you could have been more biased than the creator of this video. After all, in common law there is no political influence at all, what a bad joke! This ridiculous video should be banned!
A very biased and simplistic presentation. Some corrections :
* Judges are not always elected in common law countries (only in the US, I believe)
* Civil law is not produced by the government but the Parliament, which in democracies is elected by the people (therefore, civil law is more democratic than common law because unelected and unaccountable judges do not hold such an important power)
* Civil law judges cannot refuse to rule on a case, even if there is no specific statute on the subject, that would be a denial of justice (see art. 4 of the French civil code for an example)
* Finally you did not adress the issue of the accessibility of the law : in France, I can find all the legal codes online on "Légifrance", well organised and structured. Is something like that possible under common law ?
She’s from the US, where “the government” basically means “the state” (or more specifically the legislating and administrative entities of it, or even more specifically, the national government). For the executive we use “administration”.
One can see this in the graphics used in US news coverage. Whenever “the government” is talked about, they will often use pictures of the building of the relevant agency or their employees working. Whenever “the gov’t” is talked about in Canada they’ll use images of the PM and members of their cabinet.
And also: ther are countries (like mine) that use civil law, but still elect their judges.
Civil law doesn't come from the government, it comes from the legislature. Not the same thing.
I think its a bit too simplistic to say that common law is from the people while civil law is from the government. First of the court system is obviously a branch of government, and there aren`t many countires where judges are elected by the people. Civil law on the other hand usually comes from a democratically elected legislative branch, which one could argue is "from the people" to a much higher degree then common law. Not a very good presentation.
This is a very simplistic view of civil law. In most civil places, the top courts (appellate, supreme or constitutional) have a certain amount of authority and their decisions are de facto precedents. Very rarely does a judge not decide a case because "there is no law". While yes, in theory, there's no such thing as a precedent in civil law, in practice there is. It's just that civil law judges are more constrained by codified law than common law judges are. Civil law judges also make decisions that cover new and uncodified areas of law, but since they cannot argue by equity alone, they have to be a bit more creative with their reasoning. In the German legal tradition (more specifically Austrian, but followed by Germany), judges can even strike down constitutional amendments deemed incompatible with the core values of the constitution - this is something unheard of in common law. So civil law judges wield even more power sometimes ;)
How easy or difficult is the process of amending the constitution?
@@Meta_Myself depends on the country
@@Samo762 In most places?
@@Meta_Myself it's pretty difficult as amending the constitution is a much bigger deal than amending any rule or act. Usually in civil countries constitution are amended by gaining a majority in the legislature of the country.
@@som600 A simple majority doesn't sounds pretty difficult.
@3:22 the speaker claims that common law is based on the power of the people, as opposed to civil law countries - this is strictly incorrect. Judges being appointed by the people in common law countries does not mean that people have more power - I would argue the opposite, the government in civil law countries are representing the people and the laws they pass should be followed - not changed by local judges. Instead in civil law countries the law is the law, not what the judge claims to be the law, furthermore in the Scandinavian courts we have ley judges that are chosen by the local political parties, meaning they are indeed chosen by the people - and they will affect the course of the case, meaning they have power - just not the power to CHANGE legislation. This video is extremely biased in favor of common law countries, some nuance should have been put into this before claiming such things.
I think one upside of civil law is that it doesn't rely on a "jury of peers", and cases are decided by judges based on codified law, and not put up to the "popularity contest" of a jury trial that American court movies capitalize on so well... there is way less drama in a civil court.
The video so blatantly biased towards common law, present so simplistic a view, it hurts.
Why would you ever want to be subject to an abstract code that cant judge based on extenuating circumstances rather than your peers
@@stormwater8986 because random people from the streets don't know law, are not trained to be as unbiased as possible or to even be logical, and they don't have to explain their decisions.
@@stormwater8986If you’re referring to criminal law, most judges actually do have protocols laid out in the code of criminal procedure for mitigating punishment, and it’s up to the judge to apply this or not. Also a jury of peers is a thing in some civil law countries, for example in my country the highest criminal court is called the court of assizes, and here a jury if peers is required
The juge of civil law cannot actually refuse to adjudicate under penalty of being guilty of a denial of justice
They would have to interpret the law, presume the intention of the parties, recourse to general principles etc...
your about 3 years late
Such a biased description, lol. It's clear the authors of the video side with "common law".
Almost all the countries in the middle east adopt CIVIL law system, when the French occupied Egypt it established its legal system and consequently it spread in the majority of the middle eastern countries, it would be nice if you made more research about it because it is history.
Very clear but, Indonesia is using civil law, keep it up
true, she should revise it, otherwise it misleads common people
Common law is not based on the power of the people anymore than civil law.
it is judge, therefore the government that make law in common law.
Thanks for sharing, very helpful 😀
Why are you acting like basing law on the thought of the past is fair and just
Voice is just amazing.
this video is so straight forward. Thank you
great overview - thank you
This is such a straightforward summary thankyou!
just pointing out that civil law is also based on wisdom and even more cases since civil law is derived from roman law
Someone should point out that the intentions/actions of gov't can only be presumed innocent for as long as they rely primarily on the consent of those affected.
Yet your consent is irrelevant, much like that of a slave. that's all one needs to realise to know everything else is an esoteric illusion, to conceal their crimes against humanity.
Canada has provinces that use each of common law or civil law. The difference to the citizen is negligible. It really just boils down to how lawyers make their arguments.
The other thing about us is that our provincial court judges are not elected. I think elected judges is really an American invention. No other Commonwealth country use elected judges. That system was conceived with good intentions but elected judges may not give out the fairest ruling due to their need to pander. The judicial system should not be political.
This video is biased towards common law 😂
Are these differences applicable in everyday civil/criminal court? Or is it only applicable in cases where there has been some constitutional violation? I ask because she keeps saying "the judge decides X," so I'm assuming she's referring to a scenario with no jury
Tunisia in north africa we use civil law and not religious you are wrong
This video utterly fails in its explanation of civil law from the very beginning. Civil law is based on legislation created by Congress, and Congress is elected by the people. No government official can write and create laws at will. The Constitution clearly states that the people hold constitutional power, and this power is delegated to Congress when it is elected by the people.
the best video on this I've seen so far. doesn't unnecessarily use complex language and shows a simple view on the subject thankyou very much!
Common law is also very intransparent to the average person.
yeah buddy
،Thanks
all I needed thank you!
Thank you
DROIT CIVIL:
Origine de la source se trouve dans le droit romain.
Principale source du droit est la loi, les normes constitutives du jus commun de texte législatif.
Le raisonnement a tendance à être déductif et syllogistique.
La systématisation du droit, liée à d’intelligibilité et d’accessibilité du droit, et les processus de codification.
Modèle inquisitoire, où un juge ou un magistrat recherche activement la preuve.
COMMON LAW:
Origines de cette tradition se trouvent dans le droit coutumier anglais médiéval.
La principale source du droit, constitutive du jus commun, est la jurisprudence.
Le raisonnement a tendance à être inductif et casuistique.
Common Law a tendance à avoir un système judiciaire unifié avec des tribunaux compétents pour entendre toutes sortes de différends, qu’ils soient civils, administratifs, criminels....etc.
Modèle preuve et procédure, qui joue dans cette tradition un rôle crucial, est fondé sur un modèle accusatoire où les parties en litige contrôlent elles-mêmes une bonne partie du processus.
lmaoo why does civil law sound better, and why does the majority of the world use it in their legal systems.
Land
Air
Water
Cringe 101
What do you mean?
Thank you for the excellent video.
Blackstone's Commentaries says the common law can only be found in the holy bible!
crude understanding of both systems
It's fine as introduction.
good job....
I wonder if you could have been more biased than the creator of this video. After all, in common law there is no political influence at all, what a bad joke! This ridiculous video should be banned!
Great explanation but need well illustrated examples
In other words Common law is natural law civil law is unatural law
Bullshit.
Thorough.
H