两大法系错误区别中残留的真相

The Common Law/Civil Law Divide:Residual Truth of a Misleading Distinction

人们常常把对抗制和纠问制诉讼模式的不同作为西方两大法系最根本的不同点,进而依据两个模式又发现、列举出一系列衍生的区别。其中当然有正确的观点也有错误的理解。达马斯卡在本文中首先考察了自由放任时代两大法系所存在的相同点和不同点,进而跟踪之后两大法系发生的变化来甄别那些已经逐渐消失的区别,最终为我们揭示能够成为根本不同点的特征。

The view that the differences of two western legal families rooted in the contrast of adversarial and inquisitorial models of procedure maybe is misleading.We all know many other differences between them,such as the role of judge in court,the opposition between episodic and concentrated proceedings,the preference of incourt testimony or written evidence and so on.This article will discuss the traditional differences between them by examining the features of them in laissez-faire period and the developments after that to demonstrate the misleading contrast and the meaningful differences which existed till now.The main purpose is to describe a relatively correct view of the relationship of the Anglo-American law system and the Continental law system.