When considering the legal systems of our time in the framework of one of the legal disciplines, first of all, the authors of textbooks, teachers, and practitioners have in mind, of course, the systems that take place anywhere in our world. Those. not only features of the legal system of Russia, but systems in individual countries of the Earth are considered.
Today, two somewhat competing systems can be distinguished. They turned out to be the most effective, acceptable and widespread: Romano-Germanic and Anglo-Saxon. Sometimes socialism is also called along with them, but many historians claim that such a social system is a transitional stage from one system to another.
Legal systems of our time have their drawbacks and their advantages. Sometimes the former outweigh the latter. Moreover, the same system in different countries can develop in different ways: with respect to some elements of the system it is faster, while others slower.
Each system includes as separate elements not only acts, methods of law enforcement, but also the legal consciousness of citizens. The similarity of the individual elements with each other just allows us to attribute a certain system to the “legal family”.
Of course, modern legal systems have their own national and historical features. This can be seen even in the name of the main legal “families”.
Continental system
Russian law refers to the "family" of the Romano-Germanic or continental (as it is also called) system. The countries of Europe, Japan, Latin America and China share the same legal basis (in part). The main feature of this system is the recognition of the inviolable human rights (Constitution) and the allocation of citizens' obligations to their country. It is based on Roman postulates of rights, well developed at European universities. The rule of law is established through a series of codes, but the Constitution has greater legal force. It is on its basis that all laws in the country are built and changed, since it contains the rights of a citizen as the highest value of the state. There is a similarity of the constitution in other countries with a continental legal system (for example, the Declaration of Rights in the European Union).
The second feature of the “family” is the separation of social and private (the concepts of municipal and private property are introduced ). It is no secret that situations arise when the public and interests of an individual are closely intertwined. And often the law can be interpreted both in favor of society and in favor of the citizen. But the judicial system allows you to disassemble, resolve each specific case, and, if necessary, make changes to the codes of the Russian Federation: general (such as civil) and special (housing, family and others).
Of course, the legal systems of the world have been improved: laws on intellectual property and others appeared, which were not there initially.
Anglo-Saxon system
Another common system is the Anglo-Saxon: the United States and the British Commonwealth (Great Britain, which differs from other European countries, Canada, New Zealand, Nigeria, Australia and others). The system was based on the federal structure of the colonies: centralization of power. Changing, the Anglo-Saxon system incorporated the main concept - justice. Acting in good faith - such a principle, it would seem, could solve the main problem of the continental system - the dissatisfaction of the parties due to the discrepancy in the interpretations of the law. The principle continues to this day: when the law is powerless, fair measures are applied (again from the subjective point of view of the court). True, only in relation to private property, contractual relations, judicial penalties. And only on the basis of general legal standards.
The concept of private in the Anglo-Saxon system is much broader, hence there are fewer differences between citizens. For example, the rights of both companies and individual citizens are considered privately (the principle of justice is “obvious”).
So, the historically established basic legal systems of our time differ in how they satisfy basic human rights. And how much justice manages to achieve this goal is difficult to judge, living only according to one system, without experiencing the effect of another.
And in conclusion, it should be noted that the legal systems of our time can have a different look: both more specific “narrow” forms (Muslim law, Jewish and others), and international scale (as an example, take the European Union and its Declaration on Human Rights )