Derecho De Usa

CHAPTER 11

STRUCTURE OF ENGLISH L A W
292. Lmportance of legal s tructure

U ntil r ecently t he t heory of t he s ources of law h as b een e mphasised a s t he m ost s triking f eature of E nglish law. E uropean c ontinental jurists h ave b een e ducated t o b elieve i n t he s uperiority of
legislation a nd a re filled with a dmiration f or c odes. F or them it was
strange-alrnostunseemly-that
a highly civilised c ountry a nd t he
greatest t rading n ation o n c arth s hould r eject codification a nd
rernain a ttached t o t he p hilosophy, o utdated in t heir eyes, t hat
decided c ases c onstitute t he f undamental s ource of law.
Legislation a nd judicial decisions d o n ot, it is t rue, play t he same Diferencias en el tema de
la estructura
role in c ontinental a ndEnglish law. B efore, h owever, d ealing with
(clasifi caciones,
the n otable d ifferences existing in t his r espect, it is i mportant t o c onceptos y la regla de
bring t o light a nother, a d ifference in t he very s tructure of derecho) y las fuentes en
R omano-Germanic laws a nd t he C ommon law. T oday t here is el Common Law and Civil
Law.
some t endency t o a dmit t hat this d ifferenceis e ven m ore f undamental t han t hat t o b e o bserved in r elation t o t he s ources. I t is t he
most difficult f or a jurist of t he E uropean c ontinent to understand
but it e xplains, in t he last analysis, why English legal t hinkers h ave
a d ifferent t heory of s ources of law a nd w hy, in p articular, English
law h as n ot accepted, a nd i ndeed c ould o nly a ccept with g reatdifficulty, t he R omano-Germanic p rinciple of codification.
T hese s tructural d ifferences h ave b een n eglected; only very
recently h as their essential c haracter b een n oticed, a nd t he r eason
for this is t hat f or a long t ime, and under the influence of o ne p revailing t heory, it was t hought possible t o a nalyse law a s m erely a
series of legal n orms. A b etter p erspective,however, s hows t hat
the e ssential in law is n ot s o much its r ules a t a ny given m oment
b ut i ather t he s tructure of t he l aw, its classifications, t he c oncepts
it m akes u se of a nd the t ype of legal r ule u pon which it is b ased.
N o t eaching of law c ould b e c onceived if t his w ere n ot s o b ecause,

3 34

T he C ornmon L aw

in f act, beyond t he e ver-changingrules t here is a f ranzework o f th,
law w hich is r elatively s table. T h e e ssential f or a law s tudent is to
l earn a v ocabulary a nd to b ecome f amiliar w ith c ertain c onstant
c oncepts w hich will e quip h im t o s tudy any q ucstion, even t hough
t he r ules h e h as l earned will h ave v ery p robably c hanged. Th,
l egislators m ay m odify o r a bolish a ny p articular r uleof p resent
l aw, b ut t hey c an h ardly c hange t he l anguage u sed o r a lter t he trad itional s tructures w ithin which o u r l egal r easoning t akes p lace.
D espite, f or e xample, t he m any s ocial c hanges a nd p olitical revolu tions t hat h ave o ccurred in F rance, t he w ords and c oncepts o f
o wnership, c ontract, m arriage a nd h ypotheque h ave b een maint ained. T h e actual r ules o n t hese s ubjects a re n ot t oday w hat t hey
o nce w ere, b ut t he n ew riiles a re e xplained w ithin a n orgariisa tional f ramework i n d octrinal w orks that has l ittle changed over
t he c enturies.
293. Categories and concepts

I t is, p recisely, in al1 t hese r espects t hat E nglish l aw is s o very
d ifferent f rom the F rench a nd o ther l aws of t he R omano-Germanic f amily. English l egal s tructure is n ot t he same a s that o f
F rench l aw a nd it p oses t he g reatest difficulty f or a c ontinental jurist s ince it is, in f act, t otally d ifferent t o a nything w ith w hich h e is En el derecho
f amiliar. T h e r e is f or e xample n o p rincipal d ivision of law i nto inglés no
existen
" public" a nd " private" l aw, n o d ivisions s uch a s...