Marcus Mark - Independent Research & Advisory

Why Do Courts Operate Similarly Around the World?

The operational similarities among courts worldwide reflect a blend of shared legal traditions, international standards, and the influence of globalisation. Despite each country's unique legal nuances, a convergence of practices emerges due to historical, cultural, and practical factors. Below, we explore the key reasons behind this uniformity in judicial systems.

1. Shared Legal Foundations

Legal traditions underpin the structure and operation of courts, often transcending national boundaries:

Common Law Systems: Nations such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States adhere to the common law tradition, where judicial precedents play a pivotal role. The reliance on case law fosters uniformity in court operations and decision-making processes.

Civil Law Systems: Countries in Europe, Latin America, and Asia often follow civil law traditions, relying on codified statutes to guide legal proceedings. 

This standardised approach promotes consistency within and across regions.

Hybrid Systems: Many nations, including South Africa and the Philippines, combine common and civil law elements. These hybrid systems contribute to shared judicial practices while retaining unique characteristics.

2. Influence of International Law

Global legal frameworks significantly shape national judicial systems and international agreements: Treaties and organisations such as the United Nations establish universal principles like the right to a fair trial. These frameworks encourage nations to adopt similar standards, ensuring justice is accessible and equitable.

Global Judicial Bodies: Institutions like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) set influential precedents in human rights, trade disputes, and environmental law. National courts often align their practices with these rulings.

3. Legal Harmonisation Efforts

Efforts to harmonise laws across regions and the globe drive uniformity:

Regional Integration: In the European Union, member states align their legal systems to ensure smooth trade, efficient dispute resolution, and human rights protection. Similar efforts exist in other regions, such as the African Union.

Globalisation of Commerce: International trade demands consistency in commercial law. As a result, courts worldwide adopt global standards to facilitate cross-border business operations and dispute resolution.

4. Universal Commitment to Human Rights

Human rights frameworks unify judicial practices globally:

Codified Rights: Documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) ensure the implementation of fair trial standards. These principles promote transparency, impartiality, and accountability in courts.

Binding Treaties: Agreements like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) compel signatories to align their judicial systems with international human rights standards.

5. Influence of Legal Education

Legal professionals' education and training play a vital role in standardising practices:

Global Cooperation: Judges, lawyers, and other legal professionals often attend international conferences and training programs. This cross-cultural exchange fosters a unified approach to legal principles.

Standardised Curricula: Law schools worldwide integrate foundational legal concepts, including those shared by multiple legal systems. This consistency ensures that future practitioners contribute to globally harmonised judicial practices.

6. Historical and Cultural Legacies

History has a lasting impact on modern judicial systems:

Colonial Influence: Many countries inherited legal systems from former colonial powers. For instance, the British Empire introduced common law to Australia and India, while French and Spanish colonisation shaped legal systems in Africa and Latin America.

Roman Law Foundations: Modern legal principles in property, contracts, and torts owe much to Roman law, particularly in civil law countries. These enduring concepts foster continuity across jurisdictions.

7. Technological Advancements in Courts

As technology reshapes legal systems, courts worldwide embrace modernisation:

Digital Transformation: Online case filings, virtual hearings, and digital record-keeping enhance efficiency and accessibility in judicial processes. These innovations create a unified approach to court operations, especially in handling cross-border cases.

Global Standardisation: 

Technology-driven solutions, such as AI-assisted legal research and blockchain for document verification, further align judicial practices internationally.

Conclusion

Courts worldwide operate with remarkable similarities due to shared legal traditions, historical influences, and efforts to meet global standards. The ongoing integration of technology and international cooperation ensures these systems evolve cohesively. As globalisation deepens, the interplay between national sovereignty and international legal frameworks shapes judicial operations, fostering a unified yet diverse global legal landscape.

The Role of Juries in the United States and Australia

Juries have long been a cornerstone of justice systems worldwide, ensuring that decisions on guilt, innocence, and liability reflect the perspectives of ordinary citizens. While the United States and Australia rely on juries to uphold the rule of law, their function and scope differ significantly between the two nations.

Juries in the United States - When is a Jury Required?

Criminal Cases:

Under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a jury trial is guaranteed for serious criminal offences, including felonies and misdemeanours, where the potential sentence exceeds six months of imprisonment.

Juries assess guilt or innocence based on evidence presented in court.

Size: Typically, 12 jurors for felony cases, though some states permit smaller juries for misdemeanours.

Unanimity: Most jurisdictions require a unanimous verdict for conviction or acquittal. Some states, however, have historically allowed non-unanimous decisions in some instances.

Civil Cases:

The Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial in federal civil cases involving claims exceeding $20.

State laws vary, with jury trials available for significant civil matters such as personal injury and defamation.

Civil juries determine liability and, where applicable, the damages to be awarded.

What Does the Jury Decide?

Criminal Trials: The jury’s role is limited to deciding guilt or innocence; they do not determine sentencing.

Sentencing: Judges hand down sentences, except in capital punishment cases, where juries may play a role in deciding the penalty.

Civil Trials: The jury rules on liability and sometimes determines the quantum of damages.

Juries in Australia - When is a Jury Required?

Criminal Cases:

Juries are only mandated for serious indictable offences, such as murder, sexual offences, and major fraud.

Lesser (summary) offences are handled by a judge or magistrate sitting alone.

Size: Criminal juries are usually composed of 12 members.

Unanimity: Traditionally required, though states like New South Wales and Victoria permit majority verdicts (11-1 or 10-2) after prolonged deliberation.

Civil Cases:

Civil jury trials are rare but remain available in defamation and certain high-value disputes.

Civil juries are smaller than their criminal counterparts, usually comprising 4 to 6 members.

Some states, such as NSW, have abolished civil juries in most cases.

What Does the Jury Decide?

Criminal Trials: The jury determines guilt or innocence but plays no role in sentencing, which is entirely at the judge’s discretion.

Civil Trials: In the limited circumstances where civil juries are used, they decide liability and may also assess damages.

Juries in the United States and Australia serve as vital safeguards in the justice system, ensuring that legal outcomes are fair, transparent, and community-driven. However, their responsibilities and decision-making powers reflect each country’s distinct legal traditions and approaches to justice.

Legal Corruption

The Justice system has three principles: ethics, common sense, and laws. The best way to describe it is by comparing it to a tennis ball: The air inside the ball is ethics, the rubber surrounding it is common sense, and all the nap (tiny fibres) on the rubber are laws. 

There are many laws, like the tiny fibres making up the nap on the tennis ball, but just one rubber casing with air inside. If the nap is removed to become just a plain rubber ball, it still bounces and is usable, but the nap alone falls to pieces, like dust, for the broom or vacuum cleaner. 

The laws alone mean nothing without ethics and common sense.

Unfortunately, many legal practitioners are breaching this rule of law and obstructing justice. Every unjust decision in the court negatively impacts the economic system, not just the unsuccessful litigant. The demise of today's social and economic climate has been facilitated by unethical professional practices that have worsened through accumulation and ignorance. It is amplifying, will rapidly worsen, and must be intervened in the interest of the good people and the economy.

Matters that could be resolved in hours often take weeks; those that should take days stretch into months, and what might be resolved in months drags on for years. In some parts of the world, the legal system feels like an emotionally and financially draining scam, thinly veiled as an ethical and formal process.