Common law vs. civil law: the basic difference
The world's two biggest legal families are the common law and the civil law. The difference between common law and civil law starts with a simple question: where do you look first to find the law? A common law lawyer looks at earlier court decisions. A civil law lawyer opens the code.
In a common law system, judges don't just apply rules; their reasoned decisions become rules for later cases through stare decisis. In a civil law system, the legislature writes comprehensive codes, and judges apply them to the facts. Court decisions matter, but in principle they explain the code rather than replace it.
- Common law
- England, U.S., Canada, Australia, India
- Civil law
- France, Germany, Spain, Japan, Korea, most of Latin America
- Main source
- Precedent vs. codes
- Trend
- Both now mix statutes and case law
Both families trace back to a single question about who should speak for the law. England answered "the judges," and continental Europe answered "the code."
Where they came from
The common law grew in England after the Norman Conquest of 1066. Royal judges traveled the country and, over centuries, turned scattered local customs into law "common" to the whole realm. Because the common law could be rigid, a separate body of rules called equity developed in the Court of Chancery. The Judicature Acts of the 1870s merged the courts, though equitable remedies like injunctions survive today.
The civil law descends from Roman law, especially the Corpus Juris Civilis compiled under Emperor Justinian in the sixth century and rediscovered by medieval universities. Its modern form came with great codes: the French Civil Code of 1804, often called the Napoleonic Code, and the German Civil Code (BGB) of 1900. Japan adopted German and French models in the 1890s, and Korea's Civil Act of 1958 drew heavily on the German and Japanese tradition.
- 1066 Norman Conquest; royal courts begin building the common law
- 1804 French Civil Code
- 1900 German Civil Code takes effect
- 1958 Korean Civil Act enacted (in force 1960)
Precedent, codes and how judges reason
Precedent is the sharpest contrast. Under stare decisis, lower courts must follow the holdings of higher courts on the same issue. Judges can still distinguish a precedent when the facts differ in an important way, and the highest court can overrule itself, as the U.S. Supreme Court did in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), rejecting Plessy v. Ferguson.
In civil law countries, a judgment formally binds only the case decided. Korea's Court Organization Act art. 8 says a higher court's ruling binds lower courts only in that same case. Even so, Supreme Court decisions carry heavy practical weight, and changing a precedent requires the full bench. The result looks closer to the common law than the theory suggests.
Reasoning styles differ too. Common law opinions are long, often signed, and include dissents that later generations quote. Classic French judgments are short and impersonal. German and Korean judgments sit in between: structured around the requirements of a code article, with careful discussion of scholarly views. Methods of statutory interpretation matter in both systems, but they carry more of the load in civil law.
Trials, judges and lawyers
The common law trial is adversarial. Lawyers for each side gather evidence, call witnesses and cross-examine, while the judge acts as referee. The U.S. Constitution guarantees jury trials in criminal cases (Sixth Amendment) and many civil cases (Seventh Amendment), and the jury's role helped produce detailed rules of evidence such as the hearsay rule.
Civil law procedure gives the judge a more active role, especially in investigating facts in criminal cases. Professional judges decide most cases. Korea added citizen participation in 2008, but jurors in Korean criminal trials give an advisory verdict that doesn't bind the judges.
Careers differ as well. Common law judges are usually appointed from experienced lawyers. Civil law judges traditionally enter a career judiciary young, after an exam and training. Korea has been moving toward a unified profession, requiring legal experience before appointment, and it opened American-style law schools in 2009.
| Common law | Civil law | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary source | Precedent, plus statutes | Codes and statutes |
| Precedent | Binding (stare decisis) | Formally binds the case only |
| Trial style | Adversarial, juries common | Judge-led, professional judges |
| Judges | Appointed from experienced lawyers | Career judiciary |
Cash Note
청년문화예술패스 하반기 추가 발급 — 2006·2007년생 최대 20만 원, 11월 30일까지
50 readers so far
Make Korean friends & friends from around the world learning Korean
Chat easily with people from many countries who love Korea.
Beauty UP
대학생 가성비 기초 루틴 — 꼭 필요한 3단계만 남기기
135 readers so far
Psych UP
나의 돈 성향 테스트｜저축 다람쥐? 오늘만 사는 플렉서?
2 people have taken it so far
Criticism and convergence
Critics of the common law say it's hard for ordinary people to know the law when it's scattered across thousands of opinions, and that judge-made rules can change without democratic debate. Critics of the civil law answer that codes age, that judges forced to stay close to the text may reach unfair results, and that a code can't foresee every new technology.
In reality the families have converged. The U.S. now has enormous statutory codes, from the tax code to the Uniform Commercial Code, and agencies issue binding rules. Civil law countries rely on supreme court case law to fill gaps, and many have adopted constitutional courts that strike down statutes, an idea rooted in the American practice of judicial review. The European Union mixes both traditions daily.
Korea is a good example of this blending. Its private law is continental, while its constitutional review, law schools and citizen juries borrow from the American model.
Using this topic in study and assignments
For a comparison essay, build a five-column table: origins, sources of law, status of precedent, trial style and judges. Then add one concrete example per column, such as Brown v. Board for overruling or Civil Act art. 1 for the order of sources in Korea. Close with where your own country sits and why.
A short Korean paper on Key Features of the Common Law System Compared with Civil Law: Precedent, Rule of Law, Jury Trials and Judicial Appointments covers precedent, the rule of law, juries and judicial appointments in two pages, and a paper on Written Law vs. Unwritten Law in Korea: Constitution, Statutes, Decrees, Customary Law and Case Law as Sources of Social Welfare Law explains written and unwritten sources of law from the civil law side. For the political idea behind both, see the rule of law.
- What is the main difference between common law and civil law?
- Common law treats earlier court decisions as binding sources of law, while civil law starts from written codes and treats decisions as applications of the code.
- Is Korea a common law or civil law country?
- Mainly civil law, with a code-based Civil Act, but it has added American-style features such as constitutional review, law schools and advisory citizen juries.
- Does the U.S. have codes?
- Yes. Federal and state statutes are extensive, but courts interpret them through precedent, so case law remains central.
References and official sources
- Common law, Wex. Cornell LII
- Civil law, Wex. Cornell LII
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Justia
- Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Justia
- 법원조직법. 국가법령정보센터