Legal Analysis: Civil Law is Easier than Common Law

There are two legal traditions that work as foundations to all-out administration of any country in the world; these legal traditions are; civil law and common law traditions. This is one of the reasons why each country's legal education as well as any sort of administration are not the same and also one of the reasons why we cannot reach our abstract aspiration: "the world law." This article will reveal which tradition is easier in term of education and enforcement.

Civil law is easier than common law in both, terms of learning and enforcement, but why?

From the very outset, civil law tradition is a "writing tradition." Writing means every law or any nationwide effective administrative rule are written down and followed by printing in hard copies (books, journals, periodicals or other media publication) and even the fastest facilities: the internet. Writing makes the learners, the fellow citizens as well as the law enforcement officials easy, because they are able to find the law anytime and anywhere (library, bookstore, newsstand home library, etc) with or without the help from the expert in the field; in contrast, I do not think this ease applies to the common law countries. Above all, civil law is not as complicated like the common law where law or decision is flexible in accordance with the case.

One of the instinctive eases of civil law is that even the person whose brain is totally white with law or any social systematic complication can understand and it is much easier for serious law students who make to clarify or deeply understand and surprisingly, for the law enforcement officials.

The fact that civil law is a written tradition does facilitate me as a law student as well as others, because most of the times I do not need the expert in the fields to explain me every encountering difficulties; everything is literally and clearly written down in the books.

Furthermore, civil law also facilitates judge in making the decision, because he or she must follow a very stern system which are already stipulated in the books. Not just the judge, all the three institution (legislative, executive and judiciary) and the fellow citizens can easily follow what stipulated in the books; this would dramatically ease the conflicts of institutional and private interests.

The case that everything is written down in the civil law traditions, reveals me that it is easier from students from common law countries to study or practice laws in civil law countries, but it is extremely hard for civil law learners or lawyers to study or practice laws in the common law traditions, because civil law is easier to learn than the common law.

This article does not intend to underestimate common law tradition or promote the image of civil law tradition, but just, based on the author's opinion, to reveal the truth as well as other reasons why each country in one region, continent or different region and continent are still, in term of social administration, are different or very different.

I have been living in Cambodia, a civil law country, for more than twenty years, this would make me very accustomed to this system (civil law tradition), but I strongly feel that my supporting sentiment is right. What do you think? May be I am wrong, because I am not deeply familiar with the common law tradition, if it is so, let the argument begin!

Lay Vicheka is a translator for the most celebrated translation agency in the Kingdom of Cambodia, Pyramid Translation Co.Ltd.. He is now hoding other two professions: freelance writer for Search Newspaper; focusing on social issues and students' issues and Media Liaison Officer for Asia's first free on-line IELTS consultation website. Lay Vicheka is the expert author for ezine and prolific article contributor to other websites around the world such as articlecity, 365articles, spiderden, talesofasia, etc (Just google him). He is also a volunteer Cambodian-newspapers columnist (Rasmey Kampuchea and Kampuchea Thmey). Lay Vicheka has great experience in law and politics, as he used to be legal and English-language assistant to a Cambodian member of parliament, migration experience (home-based business) and in writing. He is also member of a New York-based research company. Posting address: 221H Street 93, Tuol Sangke quarter, Russey Keo district, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Tel: 855 11 268 445, vichekalay@yahoo.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The Laws of Men & Love - A Layman's Philosophical Analysis of the Law

I know a lawyer, and today he said to me, "The law is everything. It is society." When I heard this, my heart told me, "That is not true." But I didn't know why.

When I got home that night, I went to sleep at midnight. I woke up at 4AM, and I remembered what the lawyer said, and what my heart said. My mind searched my heart and the world for the answer, and this is what I found:

The law does two things only: to limit what you can do to other people, and to establish the minimum of what you must do to other people. The law lives only in these two places - but love does not exist in either of these places.

For example, I can not say bad things about you, steal from you, hit you, or kill you - even if I think it will make me happy. These are the limits that the law sets as to what I can do to other people (in law books, maybe they are called restrictive laws). There are also laws that force me to do certain things. If I am a man, I have to pay taxes and serve in the army, and if I am a father, I have to give food to my son - even if it doesn't make me happy. These are the minimums the law sets as to what I have to do to other people (in law books, maybe they are called obligatory laws). But more than that, I don't have to do: I don't have to donate money to the government, or buy toys for my son if I don't want to.

The restrictive laws can be simplified into one rational principle: "You can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt other people." This is actually the way most people view their happiness and freedom. You are free to do whatever makes you happy as long as it doesn't get in the way of other people. The obligatory laws can also be simplified into one rational principle: "You have to do a few certain things to certain other people, but more than that you don't have to do." This is actually the way most people view their responsibilities. Combine these two ways, and you see that this is how most people live their life - how they do the things they want, and how they do the things they don't want to do. According to the law, being a good citizen means balancing the pursuit of your own happiness with fulfilling your responsibilities to others.

But if I do nothing to you, that is okay too. When other people say bad things about you, or steal from you, hit you, or kill you, I can ignore you and it is not against the law. If I don't care about you, if I let you suffer and be unhappy, that is not against the law. This is how many people use the word "respect": I won't bother you, so don't bother me. But this is not love. The same is true for the minimums: I have to pay taxes and serve in the army, but I do not have to love my country. I have to give food to my son, but I do not have to love him. The law does not teach you how to love or to have a heart - or tell you that you should have a heart. I can be a law-abiding citizen and break no laws, and yet have no heart. According to the law, it is legal to not care, to not love.

That is why listening to the law and the principles of reason teach you only how to think about yourself. Most of it tells you what you cannot take from other people. I cannot take your money, body, life, or privacy. When you take too much, the law speaks and comes alive, and seeks to punish you.

But the law does not teach you how to share with other people: if I am nice to you, say good things about you, help you, give you money, or love you, the law does not reward you. When you give more than is required by law, the law is quiet and does nothing - it is dead. The law does not exist in the places of love. When the heart is dead, the law is alive, and when the heart is alive, the law is dead. The heart exists in places beyond the law. Listen only to the law, and your heart will die.

Listen to your heart and the hearts of others, and give, and your heart will live. Happiness and love cannot exist when two people try to take from each other, or even if only one person gives and the other takes. The result is court - in fact, any time when someone goes to court, it's usually because they want to take something from somebody who doesn't want to give it. Happiness and love exist when two people or two sides give and go beyond the two rational principles of law - when they try to give and do more than is required. Two people who give stay outside of court, because they go beyond the laws of men - for they live from the heart through the laws of love.

skytoheaven.blogsome.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.