Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Precedent
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Precedent in civil law and mixed systems {{Anchor|Precedent_in_civil_law}}== {{Disputed-section|date=November 2023}} ===Civil law systems=== ''Stare decisis'' is not usually a doctrine used in [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] systems, because it violates the legislative positivist principle that only the legislature may make law. Instead, the civil law system relies on the doctrine of ''[[jurisprudence constante]]'', according to which if a court has adjudicated a consistent line of cases that arrive at the same [[Holding (law)|holdings]] using sound reasoning, then the previous decisions are highly persuasive but not controlling on issues of law. This doctrine is similar to ''stare decisis'' insofar as it dictates that a court's decision must condone a cohesive and predictable result. In theory, lower courts are generally not bound by the precedents of higher courts. In practice, the need for predictability means that lower courts generally defer to the precedent of higher courts. As a result, the precedent of courts of last resort, such as the French [[Court of Cassation (France)|Cassation Court]] and the [[Council of State (France)|Council of State]], is recognized as being ''de facto'' binding on lower courts. The doctrine of ''jurisprudence constante'' also influences how court decisions are structured. In general, court decisions of [[common law]] jurisdictions give a sufficient ''ratio decidendi'' as to guide future courts. The ratio is used to justify a court decision on the basis of previous case law as well as to make it easier to use the decision as a precedent for future cases. By contrast, court decisions in some civil law jurisdictions (most prominently [[France]]) tend to be extremely brief, mentioning only the relevant legislation and codal provisions and not going into the ''ratio decidendi'' in any great detail. This is the result of the legislative positivist view that the court is only interpreting the legislature's intent and therefore detailed exposition is unnecessary. Because of this, ''ratio decidendi'' is carried out by legal academics (doctrinal writers) who provide the explanations that in [[common law]] jurisdictions would be provided by the judges themselves.{{cn|date=May 2022}} In other civil law jurisdictions, such as the German-speaking countries, ''ratio decidendi'' tend to be much more developed than in France, and courts will frequently cite previous cases and doctrinal writers. However, some courts (such as [[Germany|German]] courts) have less emphasis on the particular facts of the case than [[common law]] courts, but have more emphasis on the discussion of various doctrinal arguments and on finding what the correct interpretation of the law is. The mixed systems of the [[Nordic countries]] are sometimes considered a branch of the civil law, but they are sometimes counted as separate from the civil law tradition. In [[Sweden]], for instance, case law arguably plays a more important role than in some of the continental civil law systems. The two highest courts, the [[Supreme Court of Sweden|Supreme Court]] (''Högsta domstolen'') and the [[Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden|Supreme Administrative Court]] (''Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen''), have the right to set precedent which has persuasive authority on all future application of the law. Appellate courts, be they judicial (''hovrätter'') or administrative (''kammarrätter''), may also issue decisions that act as guides for the application of the law, but these decisions are persuasive, not controlling, and may therefore be overturned by higher courts.{{cn|date=May 2022}} ===Mixed or bijuridical systems=== Some [[legal pluralism|mixed]] systems, such as [[Scots law]] in [[Scotland]], [[Law of South Africa|South African law]], [[Philippine legal codes|Laws of the Philippines]], and the law of [[Quebec]] and [[Law of Louisiana|Louisiana]], do not fit into the civil vs. common law dichotomy because they mix portions of both. Such systems may have been heavily influenced by the [[common law]] tradition; however, their private law is firmly rooted in the civil law tradition. Because of their position between the two main systems of law, these types of legal systems are sometimes referred to as "mixed" systems of law. Louisiana courts, for instance, operate under both ''stare decisis'' and ''jurisprudence constante''. In South Africa, the precedent of higher courts is absolutely or fully binding on lower courts, whereas the precedent of lower courts only has persuasive authority on higher courts; horizontally, precedent is ''prima facie'' or presumptively binding between courts.{{cn|date=May 2022}} ===Role of academics in civil law jurisdictions=== Law [[professor]]s in [[common law]] traditions play a much smaller role in developing case law than professors in [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] traditions. Because court decisions in civil law traditions are brief and not amenable to establishing precedent, much of the exposition of the law in civil law traditions is done by academics rather than by judges; this is called [[doctrine]] and may be published in treatises or in journals such as ''[[Recueil Dalloz]]'' in France. Historically, common law courts relied little on legal scholarship; thus, at the turn of the twentieth century, it was very rare to see an academic writer quoted in a legal decision (except perhaps for the academic writings of prominent judges such as [[Edward Coke|Coke]] and [[William Blackstone|Blackstone]]). Today academic writers are often cited in legal argument and decisions as [[persuasive authority]]; often, they are cited when judges are attempting to implement reasoning that other courts have not yet adopted, or when the judge believes the academic's restatement of the law is more compelling than can be found in precedent. Thus common law systems are adopting one of the approaches long common in civil law jurisdictions.{{cn|date=May 2022}}
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)