BecausetheUnitedStatesisfederation,Americansareusuallywellawarethatthelawmayvaryfromjurisdictiontojurisdiction.Politically,itiscertainlytruetosaythateachindependentjurisdictionhasitsownindependentlegalsystem.However,intermsoflegaltraditionsandlegalmethods,mostoftheworld'slegalsystemsbelongtooneofafewlegaltraditions.IntheWesternWorld,andinpartsoftheworldthathavebeencolonizedorstronglyinfluencedbytheWest,therearetwomainlegaltraditionsorlegalfamilies—thecivillawandthecommonlaw.TheU.S.legalsystembelongstothecommonlawtradition（Louisianaexcepted）.
Thisnotewillintroduceyoutotheoriginsanddevelopmentofthecommonlawandthecivillawandtothemaindistinctionsbetweenthesetwosystems,especiallyintermsoflegalmethods.
1.Originsofthetwolegaltraditionsandtheirdiffusionaroundtheworld
TheCommonLaw
ThecommonlawtraditionoriginatedinEngland.Anewlegalorderwasestablishedasearlyas1066bytheNormanconquest,butthecommonlawdidnotexistin1066.WilliamtheConquerordidnotabolishthelocalcustomsandthelocalcourts.Localcourtscontinuedtoapplylocalcustoms.Therewasnolawcommontothewholekingdom.TheKingdidhoweverestablishsomeroyalcourtsatWestminster.Theirjurisdictionwasatfirstverylimitedbuteventuallyexpandedtothepointwherethelocalcourtsfellintodisuse.Thedecisionsoftheroyalcourtsbecamethelawcommontothewholekingdom,thecommonlaw.
Thecommonlawhasitssourceinpreviouscourtdecisions.Themaintraditionalsourceofthecommonlawisthereforenotlegislationbutcases.Thisissotruethatwhenthecommonlawevolvedintoanunfairsetofrigidandformalproceduralrules,theKing,ratherthanlegislatetoamendthelaw,createdanewcourt.Whenasubjectthoughtthatacommonlawdecisionledtoanunfairresulthe（andatthetimeusuallynotshe）wouldpetitiontheKing.ThereweresomanypetitionsthattheKingcreatedthecourtofChancerywhichcouldgrantadiscretionaryrelief“inequity”tocorrectthecommonlaw.Thedecisionsofthiscourtgavebirthtoabodyoflawcalledequitywhichisalsobasedonpreviousjudicialdecisions.Bothlawandequityarepartofwhatiscalledthecommonlawtradition.
TheBritishEmpirebroughtthecommonlawtoallcontinents.Thecommonlawwas“received”inmanycountries,butitsreceptionhasbeenmostsuccessfulincountrieswheretheEuropeansettlersbecameamajorityandimposedtheirlawoverindigenouspopulations.ThisisthecaseinAustralia,EnglishCanada,NewZealandandtheUnitedStates（exceptLouisianawherethecivillawwasinplacebeforetheUnitedStatesgainedjurisdiction.）Thecommonlawwasalsoimposedonmanyothercoloniesbutusuallywithsomeadaptiontotakeintoaccountthelocalcustoms.Insomecases,theUnitedStatesimposedpartsofthecommonlawonnewlyentrustedterritories（e.g.,thePhilippines）.StilltodayinAfricaandAsia,formerBritishcoloniescontinuetoapplythecommonlaw.Today,Indiaisthemostpopulouscommonlawcountry.
FollowingtheSecondWorldWar,theeconomichegemonyoftheUnitedStatesalsocontributedtotheexpansionofthecommonlaw.Contractsweredraftedincommonlawtermsandinternationalarbitratorsoftenappliedcommonlawprinciples.
AnoteaboutthecommonlawintheUnitedStates.BecauseoftheearlyindependenceoftheUnitedStates,thecommonlawherehasevolvedseparatelyfromthecommonlawofEnglandandofotherCommonwealthcountries.Commonwealthnationsbecameindependentonlyfairlyrecently,andevenlongaftertheywereindependent,somenationscontinuedtoallowappealstotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilinLondon（somecountriesstillallowsuchappeals）.ThishashadaunifyingeffectonthelawofthesecountriesandstilltodaythecourtsofonecountrywillconsiderthedecisionsofthecourtsofanotherCommonwealthcountryasverypersuasive.Bycontrast,onlyrarely,ifever,doesaUnitedStatescourtdeterminingamatterofdomesticlawinvokeadecisionofaforeigncountry'scourts.Itisthereforeevenmorestrikingthatnotwithstandingyearsof“legalseparation”thelawofthiscountrystillhassomuchincommonwiththelawofothercommonlawcountries.
TheCivilLaw
Theoriginsofthecivillawgofurtherback.TheycanbetracedtotheTwelveTablesoftheRepublicofRome（probablyinthefifthcenturyB.C.）.Initsorigin,itisthelawofthecityofRome,thelawappliedtoacitizen（inLatin,civis）ofRomeasopposedtothelawappliedtoanon-citizen.Theexpression“civillaw”,inLatinjuscivilis,literallymeansthelawofthecitizensofRome.
AfterthefalloftheWesternRomanEmpire（476A.D.）,theso-calledbarbariansbroughttheirlawtoRome,andalthoughRomanlawcontinuedtoapplytotheRomans，theGermanicinfluencegrewquicklyandthelawbecamemoreandmoreamixtureofGermanicandRomanlaw.ThiswouldlaterbeknownasthevulgarizedRomanlaw.ThislawhadverylittleincommonwiththeclassicRomanlaw.Canonlaw,thelawoftheCatholicChurch,wastheonlyWesternlegalsystemthatkeptintactmanyelementsoftheRomanlaw.However,in529-534,theEasternRomanEmperorJustinianpublishedtheCorpusJurisCivilis,anarticulationandreformulationofRomanlaw.TheJustinianCodeandaccompanyingcompendiaremainedinforceinByzantiumuntilandevenafterthefifteenth-centuryconquestbytheOttomanTurks.
Attheendoftheeleventhcentury,theUniversityofBolognastartedteachingRomanlaw,morespecificallytheCorpusJurisCivilis.ThiswasatfirstapurelyintellectualendeavorsinceRomanlawwasnolongerthelawanywhereinWesternEurope.ThismarkedthebeginningofwhatwouldlaterbeknownastheresourcesofRomanlaw.SoonotherWesternEuropeanuniversitiesfollowedtheBologna'sleadandafterafewcenturiesandforreasonstoocomplextobeconsideredhere,theRomanlawwasreceivedalmosteverywhereincontinentalEurope.Itbecamethejuscommune（the“commonlaw”）ofcontinentalEurope.
TheRomanlawactually“received”wasinfactlimitedtowhatwecall“privatelaw”（property,torts,contracts,etc.）.Thatiswhycivilianjuristsrefertowhatwecallprivatelawsimplyas“thecivillaw”（persons,propertyandobligations）.
Althoughmostcivillawcountriesnowhaveacivilcode,codificationisinfactafairlyrecentphenomenon.ThefirstFrenchCivilCodedatesbackonlyto1804andthefirstGermanCivilCode,to1896（inforcein1900）.
TheFrenchandGermanCodesarethetwomaincivillawmodels.NapoleonbroughthisCodewhereverheandhisarmiestraveled.TheFrenchmodelhasbeeninfluentialinLatincountriesbothinEuropeandinAmerica（CentralandSouthAmerica,LouisianaandQuebec）.IthasalsoinfluencedformerEuropeancountriesbeforetheSovietoccupation.GermanlawhasalsobeenreceivedbyJapan.
2.LegalMethods—AComparison
Youmustunderstandthatacivil-lawlegalmethodcoursewouldbecompletelydifferentfromthecourseyouarenowtaking.Itisimportantatthebeginningofyourlegalcareerthatyourealizethatlawcantakedifferentformsandplaydifferentrolesindifferentsocietiesandcultures.WhatyouwillbestudyingisnotthelawasitnecessarilyhastobebutthelawasitisintheUnitedStates.Hereareafewdifferencesbetweenthecivillawandcommonlaw.
Firstandforemost,incommonlawcountries,casesareusuallyconsideredtobetheprimarysourceoflaw.Yourlegalmethodclassstartswiththestudyofcases.Incivillawcountries,casesaresimplynotasourceoflaw—atleastintheory.Therealitymightwellbethatlegislationhasbecomeextremelyrelevantincommonlawcountriesandthatcasesarebecomingmoreandmorerelevantincivillawcountries,buttheattitudesofciviliansandcommonlawyerstowardlegislationandcasesdiffergreatly.
Civillawjuristswillconsiderthecivilcodeasanallencompassingdocument.Theywillinterpretitgenerouslyinordertoallowittoreachitsgoalofregulatingthewholeprivatelaw.Thecodelendsitselftothiskindofinterpretationsinceitsarticlesareusuallydraftedinverygeneralandabstractterms.
Onthecontrary,incommonlawjurisdictionslegislationtendstobeconsideredasanexceptiontothecaselaw.Thecourtsthereforehaveatendencytointerpretlegislationmorerestrictively.Inconsequenceboththecourtsandthelegislatorstendtoenunciatelegalrulesinveryspecifictermsmeanttoresolveveryspecificproblems.Generally,casesandlegislationwillnottendtouseabstracttermsortoenunciategeneralprinciples.
Civillawstudentswillread“lawdoctrine”morethancases.The“doctrine”isthecumulatedwritingsoflawprofessorsonwhatthelawisorshouldbe.Incivillawthe“doctrine”isconsideredtobeasourceoflawandahighlyrespectedone.YouhavetorememberthattheUniversity,notthecourts,reintroducedthecivillawinContinentalEurope.Itisthereforenotsurprisingthatlawprofessorsstillhaveanimportantroleindefiningthelaw.Commonlawprofessorsgenerallydonotenjoyasimilarprestigewithintheirownjurisdiction.Herethejudgesgetmostoftheprestige.
Legaleducationdiffersalotfromcountrytocountry,butitisfairtosaythatAmericanlegaleducationisveryoriginalandinmanyrespectsunique.ThecasemethodorSocraticmethodispeculiartothiscountry.Itmustbecleartoyoubynowthatthe“case”methodcouldnothavebeenthoughtofinacivillawcountry.Inthosecountries（asinthecaseinEngland）lawisanundergraduatedegree.LegaleducationtendstobelongerthanintheUnitedStates.Theteachingstyleismagisterial—theprofessorexposesthelawtohisorherstudents,whotakenotesanddonotinterveneinclass.
Ⅵ.Supplementaryreading
CaseLaw:Origins,NatureandAuthority
HowCasesMakeLaw
Thewiderauthorityofpriordecisionsinindividualcasesmaynotseemself-evidentatfirst,butconsiderthepossibleproposition.Supposeasocietyinwhicheverydisputedclaimisheardanddecidedonitsownindividualmerits,andwithnoregardwhateverforconsistencyoftheresultsfromcasetocase.Thissocietyoffersthemeansofsettlingdisputes,butthesocietyhasno“caselaw.”Eachdecisionpresentsaresultuntoitself.Eachdecisionisthereforeunpredictable.Unpredictabilityinadjudicationmayprovokebothinstabilityinsocialrelations,andthefearthatlittlemorethanpersonalwhimcontrolsthejudge'sdecision.
Thereisinfact,inmostsocieties,astrongurgetomakegenerallawfromparticulardecisions.
HowarewetoaccountforthiswidespreadinclinationtomakegenerallawfromparticulardecisionsKarlN.Llewellyn,theleadingspokesmanforthegroupoflegal10philosophersknownastheAmericanLegalRealists,offeredthefollowingexplanation：
Studentswillbecomeaware,astheirstudyoflawproceeds,thatadherencetoprecedenthasitsotherside.Acourtthatfollowsprecedentmechanicallyortoostrictlywillattimesperpetuatelegalrulesandconceptsthathaveoutlivedtheirusefulness.Thecontinuingprobleminalegalsystemthatrecognizespastdecisionsasauthoritativesourcesoflawforfuturecasesishowtomaintainanacceptableaccommodationofthecompetingvaluesofstabilityinalaw,servedbyadherencetoprecedent,andresponsivenesstosocialchange,whichmaycallfortheabandonmentofanoutwornlegaldoctrine.
TheCommonLawDoctrineofPrecedent
ProfessorLlewellynwasundoubtedlyrightinhiscontentionthatcaselawcanbefound“insomeformandtosomeextent”ineverylegalsystem.Butcaselawisuniquelyauthoritativeandinfluentialina“commonlawcountry,”whichtheUnitedStatesisbyinheritancefromEngland.TheAnglo-Americanlegalsystem,unlikethe“civillaw”systemwhichprevailswithvariationsinmostoftheothernon-Commonwealthcountriesoftheworld,explicitlyrecognizesthedoctrineofprecedent,knownalsoastheprincipleofstaredecisis.Itisthedistinctivepolicyofa“commonlaw”legalsystemthatpastjudicialdecisionsareformallyand“generallybinding”forthedispositionoffactuallysimilarpresentcontroversies.Thisbasicprinciple,firmlyestablishedcenturiesagointheroyalcourtsofEngland,wasnaturalizedasAmericanbythe“reception”ofcommonlawintheUnitedStates.
When,andforwhatfuturecases,willajudicialdecisionorgroupsofdecisionsoperateasprecedentTheterm“precedent”isacruciallyimportanttermofartinthevocabularyofourlaw.Letusnote,first,akindofterritoriallimitation:ajudicialdecisionisaprecedentinthefullsenseofthewordonlywithinthesamejudicialsystemor“jurisdiction.”ThusadecisionoftheSupremeCourtofCaliforniaisaprecedentandsogenerallybindinginfuture“like”casesinthatcourtandin“lower”Californiacourts,butitisnotafull-fledgedprecedentforfuturecasesarisinginthecourtsofOhioorVermontorsomeotherstate.EvenadecisionoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesisnotabindingprecedentinastatecourt,saytheCourtofAppealsofNewYork,unlessthelegalissuedecidedbytheSupremeCourtdecisionwasafederalquestion,thatis,oneinvolvingtheinterpretationoreffectofafederalstatuteorregulationoroftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.
Evenwithinthesamejurisdiction,adecisionisprecedentonlyfor“like,”thatis,factuallysimilar,futurecases.Toputthemattermoreprecisely,ajudicialdecisionisaprecedent,andsogenerallybinding,onlyinfuturecasesinvolvingtheFsamematerialfacts.Asthefirst-yearlawstudentswillsoondiscover,thislimitationisfareasiertostateingeneraltermsthantoapplyinconcretesituations.Notwodisputeswilleverbeidenticalineveryfactualparticular.Howisonetodetermine,orargue,thatafactualdifferencebetweenapastdecidedcaseandacasenowpresentedfordecisionis,orisnot,adifferenceinmaterialfactsCaselawprocessesrequirecarefulanalysis,matchinganddistinguishingofthefactsofcases.Bytheendofthefirstsemester,thebeginninglawstudentwillfindthatcasematchingandcomparisonhasbecomeamatterofhisorhersecondnature.
“ResJudicata”and“StareDecisis”；“Reversal”and“Overruling”
Everyfinaldecisionofanappellatecourthasadualimpactoreffect:（1）asanauthoritativesettlementofaparticularcontroversythenbeforethecourt;and（2）asaprecedent,orpotentialprecedent,forfuturecases.Alawyer'sLatinexpressiondenominateseachoftheseeffects:staredecisis,aswehaveseen,fortheimpactofthedecisionasprecedent;resjudicataforitseffectasaresolutionoftheimmediatecontroversy.DonotconfusetheseLatintermsandtheconceptstheysymbolize.Thelatteraddressesadecision'simpactintheindividualcase;theformer,itsimpactonthelegalnormofconduct.
Thefollowingexampleshouldillustratethedifference.SupposethatP（plaintiff）suedD（defendant）advertiserinStateX,forusingP'sphotographwithouthispermissioninanadvertisementforbreakfastcereal.ThetrialcourtdecidesinD'sfavor,onthegroundthatinStateX,thereisnoclaimagainstthenonconsensualuseofprivatecitizens'privatephotographsforpurposesoftrade,norhavethecourtsthererecognizeda“rightofprivacy.”TheSupremeCourtofX,thecourtoflastresortinthatstate,affirmsthejudgment.ThisdecisionisafinalandconclusivesettlementofthecontroversybetweenPandD:Thecaseisnowresjudicata,andthelosingparty,P,cannotbringthisclaimagain.
Now,tomakeplainthedifferencebetweenresjudicataandstaredecisisaslegaltermsofart,supposefurtherthattheSupremeCourtofX,twoyearslater,andinanothercaseinvolvingthenonconsensualuseofprivatecitizens'privatephotographsforpurposesoftrade,ispersuadedthatitsrefusaltorecognizearightofprivacyinthiscontextisnotasoundlegaldoctrineforpresent-dayconditions,andso“overrules”Pv.D,thusfindingagainsttheadvertiserinthenewcase.Althoughthisoverrulingdecisionisadeviationfromthenormofstaredecisis,U.S.courtsoflastresorthaveneverregardedprecedentsasabsolutelybinding—onlyas“generally”binding—andhavereservedtothemselvesalargelyundefinedauthoritytooverruleevenclearprecedentswhenconsiderationsofpublicpolicyrequireachangeinthecaselaw.
What,however,oftheparticularclaimofPv.DNowthattheSupremeCourtofXhaschangedthelaw,and“overruled”thedecisionreachedinP'scasetwoyearsearlier,shouldnotPbeabletobringhissuitagain,andprevailinhisclaimTheanswerisclear,andadversetoP.Hisparticularclaimhasbeenfinallyandconclusivelysettledagainsthim;thedoctrineofresjudicatabarshimfromeversuingonthatclaimagain.Asaresult,thefinaldecisionofacourtoflastresortcanbemoreconclusiveandpermanentinitsaspectasasettlementofaparticularcase（resjudicata）thanitmaybeinitsaspectasgenerallawforthefuture（staredecisis）.
Itisimportantheretounderscoreoneotherdistinctioninlegalterminology:between“overruling”and“reversal.”Inthelaterprivacycase,theSupremeCourtofX“overruled”itsdecisioninPv.D.TheSupremeCourtofXdidnot“reverse”Pv.D.Thetwonotionsaredistinct,andcarrydifferentconsequences.Theyarenotinterchangeable.Thehighestcourtofthejurisdiction“overrules”itsownprecedent.Thepriordecisioncontinuestobindthepartiestoit,buttheoverruleddecisionisnolongerauthoritativeastosubsequentcontroversies.Bycontrast,ahighercourt“reverses”thedecisionofalowercourt.Whenahighercourt“reverses”adecision,itreviewsthelowercourt'sjudgment,andconcludesthatthelowercourthasreachedanerroneousresult（onthefactsoronthelaw）inthatcase.Asaresult,thelowercourt'sjudgmentissetasideandisnolongereffectiveastothepartiestothatcontroversy.
Decisionsfromotherjurisdictions
Ajudicialdecision,aswehaveseen,isa“precedent”inthefullsenseonlywithinthesamejurisdiction.Intheiropinions,however,Americanappellatecourtsfrequently—indeed,moreoftenthannot—citeanddrawupondecisionsfromotherjurisdictions.Thus,forexample,theSupremeCourtofTennessee,insupportoftheresultithasreachedinacase,mayquotefromorcitedecisionsfromthecourtsoflastresortofMassachusetts,Oregon,Virginiaandahalf-dozenotherstates—evenperhapsdecisionsfromEnglandandother“commonlaw”jurisdictions.Suchoutstatedecisionsarenotfull-fledgedprecedents,buttheyareaccordedthestatusandweightofpersuasiveauthority,whichmeansthattheyarenot“binding”inanysensebutmayhaveinfluence,oftenverygreatinfluence,incaseswherethereisnolocalprecedentorthelocalprecedentsareconflictingorunclear.
ThecaselawprocessinAmericancourtsthushasaconsiderablecomparative-lawingredient:Acourtoflastresortinonestatedoesnotconsideritselfboundtofollowanotherstate'scaselawrules,butitwillcarefullyconsidertheoutstatedecisionsand,ifitfindstheirreasoningpersuasive,makeuseofthemassourcesofguidanceandjustification.Thisdispositiontogivepersuasiveweighttooutstatecaseauthorityisnotsurprising.The“reception”ofthecommonlawintheUnitedStatesmeansthatallthecaselawdecisionsofeachstatereflectcommonlawprinciple.
BecauseoftheimportantinfluenceofoutstatedecisionsaspersuasiveauthorityinAmericanlaw,lawschoolcasebooks,otherthanthoseonConstitutionalLawandotherfederallawsubjects,usuallyincludecasesdrawnfrommanyjurisdictions.Thelawstudents,asheorshereadscasesfromdifferentjurisdictions,willfindthatAmericanappellatecourtsexhibitamarkeddegreeofcomity,mutualrespect,foreachother'sdecisions.Somedecisionswillhavegreaterinfluencethanothersonthethinkingofjudgesinotherstates.Theprestigeofthecourtthatrenderedthedecision,ortheprestigeoftheparticularjudge（e.g.,Cardozo）whowrotetheopinionofthecourt,may14alsoaffectthepersuasivenessofthedecisiontothecourtsofotherjurisdictions.
Howeverhospitableacourtoflastresortmaybetopersuasiveauthorityfromotherjurisdictions,anoutstatecaseisnotasauthoritativeandshouldnotbeassignedthesameforceasatruelocal“precedent.”Thedifferenceindegreeofinfluenceismuchlikethedifferencebetweentheholdingofacaseanddictuminajudicialopinion,the“holding”beingfullyauthoritativeandgenerallybindingandthe“dictum”only,again,persuasiveauthority.
ShuaiZhou
最新作品
简介
爱Pia戏（aipiaxi.com）是中国Pia戏爱好者聚集地，汇集众多PIA戏剧本、为大家提供优质剧本、广播剧配音作品，喜爱pia戏的用户的聚集地，来戏鲸认识新朋友。