Court: Comparative Legal and Political Analysis - American Legal Library

Author: (USA) Martin et al. (Authored by); Zhang Sheng et al. (Translated by)
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-11-01
Features: The main purpose of this book is twofold, so there should be two prefaces. The first, short preface is primarily aimed at teaching staff working in fields such as comparative law and judicial procedures. The book was written with these courses in mind. The writing of this book does not assume any legal system it examines or prior knowledge of the law. I tried my best to be straightforward while writing this book. Chapter 1 presents an overall perspective on the role of courts in conflict resolution and social control, the legislative activities of courts, and the relationship between trial courts and appellate courts, which function as both fact-finders and determiners of law. Other chapters describe the legal traditions of the common law system, the civil law system, the Chinese legal system, and the Islamic legal system. The general statements of Chapter 1 can apply to courts in the United States as well as courts in other countries. The final section of the chapter provides a brief summary and review of courts in communist countries. Therefore, it is convenient to supplement the content of this book with information about courts in the United States or communist countries (or both). The second preface is more complex compared to the first. I believe that, to some extent, comparative law is a relatively disappointing field. In most cases, comparative law simply points out the differences and similarities between the procedural and substantive laws of one country and those of another country. However, after making these comparisons, no one knows what to do next. Alternatively, there may be simultaneous descriptions of many legal systems, yet no particular conclusions are drawn. Reformers can use the knowledge gained in these ways to suggest transplanting foreign legal systems that appear to function better than their own. Opponents of legal transplantation will also use comparative law knowledge to point out the close ties most legal systems have with their own legal systems, making them unsuitable for application outside their jurisdiction.