Types of Legal Systems

Why This Matters

Legal systems aren't just abstract frameworks—they determine how disputes get resolved, who has power in a courtroom, and what sources of authority shape everyday life. You're being tested on your ability to distinguish between systems based on their sources of law, procedural structures, and historical origins. Understanding these differences helps you analyze why a contract dispute in France looks nothing like one in the United States, or why religious principles carry legal weight in some nations but not others.

Don't fall into the trap of memorizing definitions in isolation. The real exam payoff comes from understanding how these systems operate differently and why they developed the way they did. When you encounter a question about legal systems, ask yourself: What's the primary source of law? Who holds interpretive power? How do historical and cultural factors shape this system? Master these analytical angles, and you'll be ready for anything the exam throws at you.

---

Systems Defined by Source of Law

The most fundamental way to categorize legal systems is by asking: Where does the law come from? Some systems look to judges, others to written codes, and still others to religious texts or community traditions.

Common Law System

• Judge-made law through precedent—past judicial decisions (called stare decisis) bind future cases, creating law incrementally over time
• Judicial interpretation is central—judges don't just apply rules, they actively shape legal meaning through their rulings
• English origins with global reach—developed in medieval England and spread to the United States, Canada, Australia, and other former British colonies

Civil Law System

• Comprehensive written codes are supreme—statutes and codified rules serve as the primary legal authority, not judicial opinions
• Judges as code appliers—their role is to match facts to existing rules rather than create new legal principles
• Roman law heritage—traces back to the Justinian Code and dominates continental Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia and Africa

Religious Law System

• Sacred texts as legal authority—divine revelation and religious doctrine govern legal obligations, not human legislation
• Sharia and Halakha as primary examples—Islamic law derives from the Quran and Hadith; Jewish law from the Torah and Talmud
• Often operates alongside secular systems—many countries apply religious law to family matters while using civil or common law for commercial disputes

Customary Law System

• Tradition as binding law—long-standing community practices gain legal force through consistent acceptance over generations
• Largely unwritten and locally variable—rules differ significantly between communities and lack formal codification
• Indigenous and tribal recognition—many nations formally acknowledge customary law for specific populations, particularly regarding land rights and family matters

---

Hybrid and Ideological Systems

Not every jurisdiction fits neatly into one category. Historical colonization, political ideology, and cultural complexity often produce systems that blend multiple traditions or prioritize collective over individual interests.

Mixed Legal System

• Multiple traditions coexisting—a single jurisdiction applies elements of civil, common, religious, or customary law depending on the legal question
• Historical layering explains the mix—colonial powers often imposed their systems atop existing indigenous or religious frameworks
• Key examples to know—South Africa blends Roman-Dutch civil law with English common law; Louisiana combines French civil law with American common law; many Middle Eastern nations mix civil codes with Sharia

Socialist Law System

• State and collective interests dominate—law serves as a tool for achieving socialist economic and social goals rather than protecting individual rights
• Property and economic regulation are central—state ownership and central planning receive legal priority over private enterprise
• Found in remaining socialist states—Cuba, North Korea, and (in modified form) China and Vietnam maintain socialist legal principles

---

Procedural Systems: How Trials Actually Work

Beyond asking where law comes from, you need to understand how legal disputes get resolved. These procedural systems can operate within any of the substantive systems above.

Adversarial System

• Party-driven contest before a neutral arbiter—opposing sides control the presentation of evidence and arguments; the judge referees but doesn't investigate
• Lawyers as central actors—attorneys shape the case through witness examination, objections, and strategic choices about what evidence to present
• Paired with common law jurisdictions—the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada use adversarial procedures for both criminal and civil trials

Inquisitorial System

• Judge as active investigator—the court itself gathers evidence, questions witnesses, and directs the factual inquiry rather than relying on party presentations
• Truth-seeking over party combat—the goal is accurate fact-finding, not victory for the more skilled advocate
• Dominant in civil law countries—France, Germany, and most of continental Europe use inquisitorial procedures, especially in criminal matters

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two legal systems both rely on non-state sources of authority, and how do those sources differ in origin?

2. A judge in Country X plays almost no role in gathering evidence—attorneys present competing narratives to a jury. What procedural system is this, and in which type of substantive legal system would you most likely find it?

3. Compare and contrast how judges function in common law versus civil law systems. What does each system expect judges to do with the law?

4. Louisiana and Saudi Arabia both have legal systems influenced by multiple traditions. Explain why Louisiana is classified as a mixed system while Saudi Arabia is primarily classified as a religious system.

5. If an FRQ asked you to explain how socialist legal systems differ from Western liberal systems in their treatment of individual rights, which two or three key distinctions would you emphasize?