One thing that I'd add to the above description of the difference in the approach to statutes is this: in civil law systems, statutes set the general principles of the law expressly by stating them; the courts then make their own interpretations of those general principles afresh in each case to arrive at conclusions about how those general principles translate into details.

In common law systems, the approach is the opposite: the legislation sets the details, from which the general principles emerge, much like a computer programme. The idea is that those who are making the statutes, rather than the courts, should be the ones who have the power to decide how the details work.

The civil law can thus be described as a top-down approach to principles, whereas the common law can be described as a bottom up approach. Both systems *value* principles equally, but arrive at them, and deal with the interface between principle and detail, in very different ways.

15  out of 15 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?