Under the traditional definition of mixed legal systems, only a few countries would qualify. With the more recent discussion of legal traditions in comparative law and the application of legal pluralism, however, the concept of mixed legal systems may become too broad. If norms, such as cultures and traditions, are to be considered in the classification process, would not all legal systems be somehow “mixed”?
Laws Are Transferred
Most laws are influenced by others – that is the underlying theory behind the concept of legal families. Legal traditions emphasize this link between past and present, yet extend it even further to include ‘the content and flow of large bodies of normative information over time and over space’ (P. GLENN, infra). Seen this way, the term law covers not only positive law or state law, but also non-state law, like social norms.
Mixed Legal Systems – A Separate Legal Family?
The question is then whether mixed legal systems should be considered as a legal family, next to – or in between – the common law and the civil law families. Such a situation appears unsatisfactory for two reasons: First, there is evidence that the strict distinction between common law and civil law countries might become somewhat more flexible, especially in the European context. For example, civil law courts have to respect and take into account decisions by European courts, whereas common law countries have to incorporate European legislation. As a consequence, the categorization into common, civil and mixed legal systems gets less and less self evident. Second, the limitation of legal systems to three groups itself is problematic, as already discussed in a prior post. Such a reductionist approach ignores the great variability of legal systems within each of these three groups. It also completely leaves out indigenous and other non-Western systems.
Different Kinds of Mixed Legal Systems
So is there the category of mixed legal systems? Such a result seems questionable given the considerable variety among these blended legal systems. For example, Professor Örücü has distinguished between four different kinds of mixed legal systems:
(1) mixing bowl systems where distinct elements are integrated within similar legal institutions (e.g. Scotland);
(2) salad bowl systems where both legal elements and institutions are distinct (e.g. Algeria);
(3) salad plate systems where legal dualism or pluralism exists (e.g. Zimbabwe); and
(4) puree systems where legal traditions that form the basis for legal elements and institutions have become truly blended (e.g. Dutch law).
This fourth point, however, illustrates that the whole category of mixed legal systems rests on a slippery slope. When is a system considered a mixed legal system instead of a member of a legal family? Which and how many distinctive elements from different families must a legal system possess in order to be considered mixed? And, last but not least, which classification method is most suitable for taking into account the special quality of a legal system, if there is any?
- Patrick Glenn, A Concept of Legal Tradition, 34 Queen’s L.J. 427, 431 (2008).
- William Tetley, Mixed Jurisdictions: Common Law vs. Civil Law (Codified and Uncodified), 60 LOUISIANA L. REV. 618-738 (2000).
- Esin Örücü, Mixed and Mixing Systems: A Conceptual Approach, in STUDIES IN LEGAL SYSTEMS: MIXED AND MIXING 335, 344-345 (Örücü, Attwool & Coyle, eds., 1996) .