it
countries which preserve other, competing legal traditions.
This can be seen in the courtrooms of Sri Lanka and South
Africa, where the Roman-Dutch substance does battle with the
common law technique; and in the courtrooms of Quebec. In
the baggage of Anglophonic troops from North America,
spread to lands where the Union Jack never flew. Even in the
lifetime of most of us, features of its system (particularly
in public law) have been introduced into the legal procedures
of the vanquished Axis powers. They may there yet prove a
potent relic of victory in a mighty conflict when much else
has passed into history.
Save for the English language,
aspects of international commerce and (possibly) the
institutions of the international legal order, the common law
will probably be the most enduring relic of that period of
human history which the English speaking people have
dominated.
Why is this so? The answers are complex.
include:
But they
1.
The highly practical nature of the system,
devoted as it is to the solution of immediate
conflicts and disputes by an authoritative
decision reached by a trained and generally
respected person by reference to a discoverable
principle of law;
2. The acceptance of the legitimacy, integrity and
authority of the decision delivered by a
judicial officer independent of, yet appointed
by, the State for reasons which are published
and which are sometimes based upon
findings of a jury of fellow citizens;
factual
and
- 2 -