Talk:List of national legal systems

message: The section on Civil Law has serious problems in the third and fourth sentences. Right now, I would recommend reworking them from the ground up, but scrapping them and starting over doesn't seem awful either. They are an utter disaster and do nothing but confuse anyone interested in the topic. 64.131.169.110 (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Needs Overhaul

message: India's is a curious case. Before the coming of the British, local and private, as well as Caste laws were prevalent throughout India. Imperial conquerers from time to time instituted their own legal codes. After the coming of the British, Indian laws were codified for better administration and dispute resolution. Many of the laws thus codified and instituted were based on English Common Law. However, the point to be taken is that all laws were codified, and only then were they dispensed. If we just look at the Common Law definition given in Wikipedia:
"The common law forms a major part of the law of many countries, especially those with a history as British territories or colonies. It is notable for its inclusion of extensive non-statutory law reflecting a consensus of centuries of judgments by working jurists.
...
One is used to distinguish the authority that promulgated a particular proposition of law: in the United States, we typically have "statutes" enacted by a legislature, "regulations" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to a delgation of rule-making authority from a legislature, and "common law" decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies) that discuss and decide the fine distinctions in statutes and regulations. See statutory law and non-statutory law."
we find that the Common Law has mostly been non-statutory customary law. However, Indian laws during the centuries since the coming of the British have been what is called 'Positive law', ie, laws made by and promulgated by a secular known authority. There are certain sectors of Indian laws where some customary and what are called 'Personal laws' are prevalent, like in issues relating to marriage, inheritance, divorce, adoption, etc. Even there proper statutes have been made that dictate and regulate the jurisdiction of personal laws. Article 44 of the Constitution enjoins upon the government to ensure that a Common Civil Code is ushered throughout the land, but that has not yet come about, and Common Civil Code remains a most contested issue in Indian Polity. 
India's constitution was written after Indian independence, and was promulgated on 26 January 1950, and the constitution remains the primary legal document. The Indian Civil Code, the Indian Penal Code and Civil Procedure Codes are based on English made laws (all of which were made especially for India, although heavily borrowing from English system), and they have been amended many times. This puts India in a very unique position. Of course there are remnants of Common law as usually defined, but I think India should more rightly be put under the Civil law system.
:These are good points and warrant further research. However, I still hold several major reservations. First, codification alone does not make a system civilian. A majority of US laws are codified in places such as the UCC, restatements, and in state penal codes, but we don't say that it is civilian. Second, as far as I recall, India folllowed the adversary system, a distinct tradition of the common law, rather than the inquisatorial system. As well, from what I've read of Privy Council decisions from India, I get the impression that Indian judges were bound by presedent (ie. stare decisis),  another common law feature. Lastly, the sources available at the bottom of the article, the CIA factbook and the Ottawa law survey, both say that India is common law. While they could both be both wrong, I think some more authoratative sources are needed to refute them. I believe we are both in agreement that India is not a pure common law country, but the question remains as to which system, at its core, it follows. --PullUpYourSocks 13:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The case of India 

message: Just added in NZ in the common law table, might put something about Maori land law later, but new to Wikipedia editing so I want to check things first :-)
Alphamatrix 03:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NZ is Common Law 

message: I'm moving Malta from Civil Law to mixed for the following reasons:
* Although the Civil Code looks Civil at the first look, it has some peculiarity that are typical for Common Law: contracts need consideration (Cap. 16 § 966 (d)), and  the primary remedy for non-performance is damages, not specific performance (Cap. 16 § 1125)
* Other sources such as  list it as mixed.
-- 3247 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malta 

message: The map shows Argentina as mixed common and civil but the article states it is just civil.  Which is it?  Also, Chile overhauled their trial system so that it is now adversarial.  Show we include this as mixed now? KingOfAfrica 13:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two of the sources found in the external links section seem to conflict on Argentina. I'm more inclined to follow the CIA page, but I would prefer a third source to confirm it. As for Chile, I would keep it as civil. The main distinguishing factor for a common law-style system is whether the justice system follows stare decisis. I'm not inclined to think that an adversarial style would make it a mixed common/civil system. You could argue either way, really.--PullUpYourSocks 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentina and Chile 

message: === Mixture of law in Quebec ===
To say that Canada is common law except civil law in Quebec is a little misleading.
For criminal law purposes, common law is used throughout Canada, including quebec. For civil law purposes (by this I mean private law) common law is used everywhere except Quebec. Quebec does use a napoleonic system for private law, but common law for criminal law.
If someone could figure out how to work this in there that'd be great.
=== Civil law & codification ===
I've edited the recent edit which suggests that Quebec only became a civil law jurisdiction in 1866, with the enactment of the Civil Code of Lower Canada.  While codification is one of the characteristics of most modern civil law jurisdictions, the concept of the civil law is not restricted to codified systems - another defining feature of civil law systems is that they are ultimately derived from the Roman law, as elaborated over the centuries.  Quebec did not become a civil law jurisdiction for the first time in 1866, any more than France became a civil jurisdiction for the first time in 1804, with the adoption of the Napoleonic Code.  Codification was a modern development in the long history of the civil law system. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec 

message: I've edited the recent edit which suggests that Quebec only became a civil law jurisdiction in 1866, with the enactment of the Civil Code of Lower Canada.  While codification is one of the characteristics of most modern civil law jurisdictions, the concept of the civil law is not restricted to codified systems - another defining feature of civil law systems is that they are ultimately derived from the Roman law, as elaborated over the centuries.  Quebec did not become a civil law jurisdiction for the first time in 1866, any more than France became a civil jurisdiction for the first time in 1804, with the adoption of the Napoleonic Code.  Codification was a modern development in the long history of the civil law system. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil law & codification 

message: I'd like to suggest that the sections about 'customary law' be removed. The reason is that I just don't think it's an actual legal system in its own right. Custom is certainly a source of law, and an important one, but it doesn't constitute a legal system. The only two examples given are Andorra and Mongolia. This is a link to law in Mongolia, which I googled in about 2 seconds, showing a distinct lack of 'custom' - it's a civil code based jurisdiction. As for Andorra, it's a European country, and I bet it's got a civil law system much like the places around it. If you wanted you could call the common law customary law under the definition given on the customary law page, and you could call England a mixed system with custom and common law: think of all the Parliamentary procedures, or the custom that the monarch doesn't sack the elected government (since 1707 I think). I'm sure that you can easily remove it from the page, and it'd make the page far simpler, neater and more accurate. Would it be okay for me to go ahead on this? Wikidea 04:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and done this, hopefully not too soon, but with any luck it's not really controversial! Wikidea 08:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Customary law is certainly a distinct form of law.  It should not be removed.  Any casual reading of a comparative law text book should demonstrate that customary law is treated as a separate system with identifiable patterns and earmarks in all jurisdictions practicing such.  The Common Law is essentially generalization of customary law, depending on one's perspective.   Geofferic 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be mistaken about this, Geofferic; for instance, I know that public international law relies heavily on custom, in the practice of nation states, which "ripens" into a source of law. But I've not read any books which treat customary law as a full system in its own right. Do you have any references at hand? I think that fundamentally, the only thing that rigidly divides common law from civil law, or any other way, is which is the predominate source of law, not that one kind of source is exclusively authoritative or not. In the U.K., we codified our commercial law in the sales of goods acts; in Germany, there are always instances or case law popping up; there's no international law-maker, although various treaties, the UN codifications and the ICJ's opinions add to the mix of different sources. But as I say, I could be wrong! Wikidea 04:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the study of Comparative Law, or even of International Law (especially the Law of the Sea), it is difficult to discuss the various specific areas without considering Customary Law as a legal system, specific to it's region.  India, for example, is a mixed system of Common, Civil, Relgious and Customary law.  The more localized you get in these less developed nations, the more you see the Customary laws being the day to day governing law.  Almost every African nation can be said to have a mixed system, with Customary law being a major player.  I will have to get back to you soon with some references.  I complete understand your skepticism and interest in references.  Geofferic 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Customary law is most definitely its own legal system, as stated by Geofferic above. I have read this in books on comparative law, but I do not at the present have any sources to add to this discussion.  Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 06:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove 'customary law' 

message: The Louisiana section implies that the Napoleonic code came with the Louisiana territory when it was purchased.
This is not the case.  The Spanish civil code was in effect in the Louisiana territory when it was purchased from Napoleon.  The state of Louisiana later voluntarily accepted the French civil code (not truly the Napoleonic code, but that's a fine point).
The purchase was completed in 1804 and no true change in law (other than the partial importation of US Common law) occurred prior to 1808, when the Civil Code was drawn up based on French, Spanish and Napoleonic code - with French being the primary influence (France having recently completed all the work of writing up a fresh new code).
Geofferic 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louisiana's Code not inherited by way of Louisiana Purchase 

message: "Federal court system based on napoleonic code not english legal system"
Its lack of capitals makes it look like a hasty vandal's addition.
--Czar Kirk (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this right? 

message: On page Civil_law_(legal_system) legal origins theory suggests four subgroups, as opposed to the three subgroups on Legal_systems_of_the_world adding Chinese law.  The two pages should be reconciled.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biccat (talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal origins theory 

message: Syria's legal system is identical to that of Egypt, where it is an amalgam of French civil code and Islamic Sharia. 
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Syria-JUDICIAL-SYSTEM.html
http://www.law.emory.edu/ifl/legal/syria.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sms1981 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syria 

message: What kind of laws are the council of elders (Somalia, ...), ayllu (bolivia), and the general fono (tokelau), ... ? They also aren't mentioned in article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.176.5 (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a section on Customary law or Traditional law could be added? The lack of this does seem very 1st-world centric.  Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 06:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "traditional" laws

message: This map is overly simplistic when compared to this article. For example, Pakistan and Bangladesh are described as being both a mix of religious and common law in this article but in the map Pakistan is marked as common law and Bangladesh is marked as Islamic law. Also, Mauritania and Egypt are equally a mix of civil law and Islamic law but Egypt is marked as only civil and Mauritania as only Islamic. Shouldn't there be a lot of stripes to the map? Munci (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that Bangladesh being marked as Fiqh is actually plain wrong -- Bangladesh seems to be closest to common law if anything.  Someone should fix it. -- 92.225.17.7 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png 

message: Sorry for my ignorance, but is there a difference between Islamic Law and Sharia? The Wikipedia article for Islamic Law simply points to the Sharia page, so I imagine there isn't. If there isn't a difference this page should just have one term, either Sharia or Islamic Law, instead of arbitrarily using both. --Gabe 216.165.95.70 (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They are almost the same. The Arabic word for law is 'sharia'. When applied, we typically mean law as defined by the prophet as derived from his book (the Quran) and the additional sayings that were attributed to him (hadith). In certain countries, Islamic law is maintained and this is seen as 'on top of' mundane law. This means you first have to be a good muslim and then you also have to comply to the law of the land. The latter would in Arabic also be called sharia, but in English sentences you can be sure the word is always used in the context of islam. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafeber (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Law vs. Sharia? 

message: Far too much weight lol, it is only Professor Makdisi and another Islamic scholar Omar Faruk who believes that, that vast majority know otherwise and the article should reflect that, I'll update.Twobells (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman Law+English Common Law= Origins in Islamic law? 

message: Each of the states in the USA has their own legal system so it might make sense to list them separately. Scotland and England are listed separately but neither is a sovereign state. Count Truthstein (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be kind of pointless to list them all separately since they all come from a roughly common legal heritage (except Louisiana). Also, I think it's misleading to label the US as Common Law. It's been drifting towards Civil Law for a century or so and is certainly much closer to Civil Law than most of the other Common Law counties (UK, Canada, Australia, etc.). I would consider it a "mixed" jurisdiction, but I don't have any sources for that. Kaldari (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of your points, Kaldari. Although, again, I don't have any sources for that. Maybe there's something on United States Code?  Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 05:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding sources for the US being considered different from Common law... While the source I'm referring to is mainly covering another topic you might find reading this document worth reading in this regard as it quotes sources commenting on just that issue: http://www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/50-1.pdf  With regards Luredreier (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the states of the USA be listed separately? 

message: I am not up to date on the admission of the 51st state so could someone enlighten me? My wonderment comes from the "Common law" section and wikitable that list under the United States, in the description column: Federal courts and 50 states use the legal system based on English common law.... It further states: State law in the U.S. state of Louisiana is based on French and Spanish civil law (see above), but doesn't say exactly where. The point is that as worded there are 50 states practicing Common law "and" the state of Louisiana that practices Civil law. According to this the United States should be listed in both sections (Civil and Common) with Louisiana the only entry under Civil. Louisiana actually has to practice both forms of law. WHAT! you might say. The fact is that if the United States Government practices "Common Law", and a Supreme Court decision is passed down that a Louisiana "Civil law" is unconstitutional, then the Federal law takes precedent and Louisiana must adhere to this. Anyway, I am still wondering about the 51st state. Otr500 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common law: 51 U.S. states 

message: What's the advantage of including this second map?  I note that it mistakenly depicts Quebec as including Labrador, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; who knows what other errors it has. —Tamfang (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  second map 

message: The qualified  reader of the present summary will be astounded to learn the following "facts":-
In some jurisdictions, ... statutes may overrule judicial decisions.  Well, in all common law jurisdictions statutes may overrule judicial decisions.  Name a country where it isn't so.
In some jurisdictions, judicial decisions may decide what meaning is contained within the statutory provisions.  In all jurisdictions judicial decisions may (and do) decide what a statute means.  Nacwiis.
Statutes were allowed to be made by the government.  Not unless it was a dictatorship.
Common law developed in England, influenced by Anglo-Saxon law and to a much lesser extent by the Norman conquest of England ...'   The influence of Anglo-Saxon law is minimal.  The Norman influence was much greater, not much lesser.  But neither of those have had any real influence on the common law, which did not start to develop until the reign of Henry II, well after the end of the Norman dynasty.
... which introduced legal concepts from Norman law, which, in turn, had its origins in Salic law.  It makes you blush.  Next time I'm in court I must make sure to cite some of that Salic law.
Common law was later inherited by the Commonwealth of Nations, and almost every former colony of the British Empire has adopted it (Malta being an exception).  Why not mention the United States of America?  Isn't that kind of an important common law country?  Who says that South Africa (Roman-Dutch law) and Sri Lanka (Roman-Dutch law) are common law systems?  BTW, I'm not an expert on Malta, but if this bit is true the author of Law of Malta will  have to change it some.  
Ttocserp 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The section summarising the common law should be rewritten by an author who knows the topic.

message: Ive updated the article as reliable sources state that the two major legal systems can equally hold the 'most widespread' tag. Common law by most number of jurisdictions and population empoying the system and the legal structure that covers the most landmass which is Civil law, subsequently, I've updated the article to reflect that, regards.Twobellst@lk 14:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Law Most Widespread - Civil law Most Widespread

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of national legal systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150223233903/http://www.tau.ac.il/law/members/ron-harris/8.pdf to http://www.tau.ac.il/law/members/ron-harris/8.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of national legal systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106165657/http://www.droitcivil.uottawa.ca/world-legal-systems/eng-monde.php to http://www.droitcivil.uottawa.ca/world-legal-systems/eng-monde.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hey guys, I noticed that Singapore is not added into the list of countries. The legal system in Singapore is the British common law.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.33.20 (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone help me add Singapore into the list of countries? 

message: Is it really important to magnify Europe to this degree? It would make sense if it were less homogeneous, but there are not many legal systems in Europe, and the ones that are different are easily seen at normal magnification. Many small countries in places outside of Europe are smaller than Ireland, and are not magnified. The only place I can really see that needs to be magnified is isolated, and these can be shown with lines or arrows.
Jcbookman (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Legal Systems Magnification 

message: I got confussion 154.74.127.67 (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the bases of legal system? 

message: The map of legal systems talks about "customary" law, but this appears for all intents and purposes to be synonymous with common law (law defined by tradition/custom/precedent/common views)? How does it differ? 2A02:C7C:C47D:8700:8854:71A:DCF6:DE15 (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Customary vs. Common Law 

message: where's indonesia? you forgot to mention indonesia in this article, okay? i think the legal system of indonesia is consisting of a mixture between civil law, sharia, and customary law, that's it. I hope anyone can edit this article and add indonesia following the respective application. the end. correct me if i am wrong. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:1193:21A2:D1B3:FBAD (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  indonesia?