Apparently there is - so a very brief intro to Common v. Civil Law. (Thread)
The basic theory of the distinction is that common law proceeds according to precedent: case by case. A judge rules on a case and the ratio of the decision becomes binding for future cases (for lower courts and to some extent for the same court)
Civil law, however, in this generalized theory bases its argument on a statute. These statutes are then interpreted by courts. Court decisions in theory do not create precedent.
The history of both systems is not as separate as one would think: Roman law played a large part in the development of both, also via the law of the church.
If you need any demonstration of this think of the Oxford Regius Chair, one of the oldest Oxford professorships. Established in the 1540s the professor taught - yes - the corpus iuris civilis and the ecclesiastical laws of England. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regius_Pr…
Today when one thinks of civil law systems, one often thinks of the Code Civil, the napoleonic civil code adopted in countries impacted by France, or the German BGB, adopted e.g. in Japan and then in China.
Mind you - you could call it more “impact” than actually being adopted...
English law, of course, spread with English colonization, French law with French colonization and was also influential in Spanish colonies.
The stereotypical difference discribed has led to some favourite descritptions such as “flexible” common law vs. “More stable” civil law. These are dubious even in theory (why exactly being stuck with century-old precedent makes a system flexible e.g.).
In practice, the differences between the systems are tremendously blurred. Thus nowadays when we speak of civil v common law we often only speak of the law of contracts and torts. Why?
Because almost all countries have a written constitution. The same is true for criminal law. And even in contracts and torts there are statutes. So most common law countries are very civil law, if you think about it.
But it’s more confusing than that. Civil law countries claim there’s no system of precedent, but is that true? Yeah, sure - in theory there isn’t, but does an Amtsgericht diverge from the mighty BGH every day? Or the Tribunal d’instance from the Cour de Cassation? No.
In fact, precedent has come to rule those systems as much as common law systems, except that the doctrine of stare decisis allegedly does not exist. Yeah. Sure.
In reality, differences (fascinating ones at that) are often in details. Take e.g. the UK system of not having a written constitution and no judicial review but parliamentary sovereignty. In the UK this is often taken as part of “common law”...
... but if it were, there’d be hardly any common law country. The US has invented judicial review and they have a written constitution. Peculilarly, the UK system leads to statutes being more respected than in most civil law countries and in the US - as there’s no constitution.
The rumour that common law systems are better for creative business is supported by California being a common law system. But pssst - California has a Civil Code. leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOC…
So the reality is... complex. Wonderful. Endlessly fascinating. And poorly described by “civil” v. “common law”.
Note to the reader: when I write of judicial review I mean judicial review of laws. I apologize for causing confusion.
