IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v2y1999i2p35-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of the Judge in the Common Law and Civil Law Systems: The Cases of the United States and European Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Seon Bong Yu

Abstract

Traditionally, substantial differences between the common law and civil law systems in terms of judge's roles could be obviously identified. Today, however, it is becoming more difficult to identify the differences between the two systems. In the common law systems a good deal of codification has taken place and judges are playing a more active role in proceedings. On the other hand, judges in civil law systems are more inclined to follow precedents and a good deal of case law have been built up to assist in the interpretation of statutory codes. In this paper, I attempt to analyze some basic differences between the common law judge's roles and civil law judge's roles and contemporary trends.

Suggested Citation

  • Seon Bong Yu, 1999. "The Role of the Judge in the Common Law and Civil Law Systems: The Cases of the United States and European Countries," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 2(2), pages 35-46, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:2:y:1999:i:2:p:35-46
    DOI: 10.1177/223386599900200203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/223386599900200203
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/223386599900200203?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alice Guerra & Maria Maraki & Baptiste Massenot & Christian Thöni, 2023. "Deterrence, settlement, and litigation under adversarial versus inquisitorial systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(3), pages 331-356, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:2:y:1999:i:2:p:35-46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.