Thetermscommonlawsystemandcivillawsystemareusedtodistinguishtwodistinctlegalsystemsandapproachestolaw.Theuseoftheterm‘commonlaw’inthiscontextreferstoallthoselegalsystemswhichhaveadoptedthehistoricEnglishlegalsystem.Foremostamongsttheseis,ofcourse,theUnitedStates,butmanyotherCommonwealthandformerCommonwealthcountriesretainacommonlawsystem.Theterm‘civillaw’referstothoseotherjurisdictionswhichhaveadoptedtheEuropeancontinentalsystemoflawderivedessentiallyfromancientRomanlaw,butowingmuchtotheGermanictradition.

　　Theusualdistinctiontobemadebetweenthetwosystemsisthatthecommonlawsystemtendstobecase-centredandhencejudge-centred,allowingscopeforadiscretionary,pragmaticapproachtotheparticularproblemsthatappearbeforethecourts.Thelawcanbedevelopedonacase-by-casebasis.Ontheotherhand,thecivillawsystemtendstobeacodifiedbodyofgeneralabstractprincipleswhichcontroltheexerciseofjudicialdiscretion.Inreality,boththeseviewsareextremes,withtheformeroveremphasisingtheextenttowhichthecommonlawjudgescanimposetheirdiscretionandthelatterunderestimatingtheextenttowhichcivillawjudgeshavethepowertoexercisejudicialdiscretion.ItisperhapsworthmentioningatthispointthattheEuropeanCourtofJustice,established,intheory,oncivillawprinciples,is,inpractice,increasinglyrecognisingthebenefitsofestablishingabodyofcaselaw.AlthoughtheEuropeanCourtofJusticeisnotboundbytheoperationofthedoctrineofstaredecisis,itstilldoesnotdecideindividualcasesonanindividualbasiswithoutreferencetoitspreviousdecisions.