The governing laws and its legal system in France and the United Kingdom have major differences, as each of the legal systems have and are based on various views. France is governed by the Constitution of 1958. All the French laws are based on this text. In the United Kingdom, the laws are based on the Common law that is called a case law. These views of the law are the reasons for the vital differences between the United Kingdom and the French legal system. Obviously, the list of the varied differences in these countries is elaborate and also too long to draw up an inventory. The legal system of a country is all a pattern and manner of creating, protecting, interpreting, and thereafter application of the law. There are many discrepancies with regard to practical details, which follow the same goal with a wide range. It is obvious that the French judges are laconic in their judgment which is contrary to a British judge's judgment wherein a discussion pattern is followed. In conclusion, the way of the achieving justice is the same. However, the mode of arriving at justice between the two countries is different.
[...] Since 1966, decisions of the House of Lords can be departed by the House of Lords itself (it was not possible before). Next there is the Court of Appeal, and the High Court in the authoritative ranking. The doctrine of precedent is another way to develop the common law for the judges. The idea is simple, but not always easy to apply. A principle of law, established in one case, must be applied in a similar situation in a later case. [...]
[...] Unlike in France, there is a separate system of administrative courts with power to review the acts of public bodies. The principle is one law; it means that the public servants are bringing to the same rules than the privates individual. As there is one jurisdiction, the way to protest against the activities of civil servant, is the same than to protest against private individual. As a rule, the competent judge and the remedies are the same. Actually, some remedies have always been specific to the action against public authorities. [...]
[...] The UK parliament is said to be able to do anything, except change a man in a woman. It implies that the parliament can change everything in the law of UK; the only exception is that it cannot reduce its own power. So the parliament can change the constitutional rules, the convention, or create a new one without any special procedure, as it was an ordinary law. Indeed there is no written Constitution, there is no constitutional court. As constitutional law derives from case law or judicial decisions, they were made in disputes before the ordinary courts. [...]
[...] Between UK and France, there are not only structure differences; there are also many concept of the law. UK is the reign of the precedent rules and case law, unlike France ‘venerates' the law. In UK the law is painstaking, there is many preliminary definitions, the application condition of each rules are in great detail defined, and the consequences on each case are determined with so many details. The role of the law is to correct the system of rules. [...]
[...] In France, it is completely different. There is a written Constitution since the Revolution of 1789. Now it is the Constitution of the République” since 1958 written under Charles De Gaulle. So this constitution has been written down in an authoritative form in one document, it comprises 89 articles, but the preamble to this constitution reference to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789, confirmed and completed by the preamble to the Constitution of 1946, and by the Charter of Environment 2004. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
