Encolpius
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 162
- Reaction score
- 21
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Other
Is French law more about getting to the truth of the matter, rather than the more adversarial legal proceedings of the US and UK?
Heh, there were a couple of French foreign students doing part of their degree while I went to uni. Cool guys.
P.s. Copyright is awesome. Trade marks frazzle my Looney Tune brain somewhat, though I do like design rights.
Very much so. A professional judge is detailed to do a factual investigation in the matter (le juge d'instruction) and the Code Civil is designed in such a way that every situation has one rule applying to it with little to no overlap and the first question is always which part of the law applies in the case. Then the facts are applied to the law - in England it's the other way round - and so forth. It's all based on an Aristotelian syllogism - there is the law (major premise), the facts (minor premise) and the decision (synthesis). Of course, that's merely the way it's done in the private actions courts, before the administrative courts decisions are a lot less tightly defined and judges have more room to move, so to speak.
They do have precedent though, but it's not binding, it's just indicatory. Indeed, art. 5 of the Code Civil specifically forbids judges from trying to form a binding precedent with their decision; in theory, only the law has any authority. Though a constant jurisprudence is built up by identifying trends in decisions and progressions between them and legal theorists draw implications from same.
I wish I could say it wasn't as dull as it looked as an area of study, but I'd be lying. After a year of legal study in England, I actually felt like my knowledge not only of the law but of the way it's generated increased. After a year in France, I felt more like a giant leaky sponge.