Here's the transcript for additional help!

Hello! In this video I will try to help you understand the difference between common law and civil law. I will focus on 3 differences which I consider to be the most important. We will go through them, one difference for each row of the table. Please keep in mind that there are other differences too. What I’m doing here is just giving you a headstart as to the main differences between common law and civil law.

Civil law is said to be codified as opposed to common law which is said to uncodified. When we say that something is codified, we basically mean that it is written down somewhere, that the rules are all collected together somewhere. The UK constitution is said to be uncodified because all the laws with which the state operates are not collected in a single book. In contrast, the US has the America’s Constitution book – their constitution is codified. Do bear in mind that the laws of England & Wales don’t just exist in the minds of people – they are written down, such as when an Act is passed by Parliament, or when the Court hands down a decision. The Act and the decision are written down. However, they are not all found somewhere collectively, and this is why the common law is said to be uncodified. A final point on this, the UK constitution can sometimes be said to not exist at all. As you should have gathered by now, everything is up for debate, but most agree that the UK constitution exists, it’s just not codified.

Moving on to the second difference between common law and civil law, have a look at the second row of the table. Judicial precedents are said to be binding in commonlaw jurisdictions. This means that like cases should be treated alike. This was mentioned in my previous video called ‘What is the Common Law?’ if you spotted it. Lower Courts have to follow upper Courts’ decisions, and matters which were dealt with one specific way, if another case arises with the same facts and/or legal issues, that also must be dealt with similarly. Judicial precedent is not so important in civillaw jurisdictions because the decisions themselves have not been reached purely through the judges’ own scholarship and interpretation. The judges’ role in civillaw jurisdictions is to establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of the applicable code. Although they use their expertise, they are not considered to be as creative as commonlaw judges. The judges’ role in commonlaw jurisdictions is to create the law to some extent, and to interpret the statutes passed by Parliament when those are in play in cases. Their role is therefore active and creative, as opposed to civillaw judges’ more passive and technical role. This is why judicial precedent is considered to be more important in commonlaw countries.

Finally, it should be clear by now that commonlaw jurisdictions are more caselaw reliant, and also operate very much on custom and practice. In contrast, civillaw jurisdictions are more reliant on legislation/constitution.

I hope my video helped you understand the main differences between common law and civil law! If you found this helpful let me know by clicking the thumbs up button, and subscribing for more educational content to come! If you have any questions or feedback leave these in a comment below! Thank you for watching!