These new national laws or codes were devised by draftsmen not necessarily relying upon past practice but upon solutions based on reason and policy. As such, they were products of the age of enlightenment, resting on the sanguine belief in the ability to apply reason and project the solution of future controversy in a systematic and comprehensive manner. One of the most distinctive features of the civil law system compared to the common law system is therefore the former's focus upon the implementation of state policy. In the common law system, dispute resolution between opponents rather than the implementation of state policy is the chief focus. This is reflected in the manner in which we litigate our disputes.
Australian litigation is adversarial.
It is largely self-managed and the courts act as neutral conflict resolvers. Rather than produce particular systemic outcomes, the role of the state in common law systems is to facilitate and support the private order. It is the self interest of the parties which constrains the application of substantive law. Nevertheless the self interest which drives our system can lead to abuse given the inequality that exists between consumers of legal services. A number of procedural safeguards are therefore required to ensure to that the system of individual exchange upon which substantive legal principles like contract and tort are predicated is maintained.