CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

INTRODUCTION

UNIT 1.  AN INTRODUCTION TO LAWS

UNIT 2. LEGAL SYSTEMS

REVIEW units 1 -2

UNIT 3. CHALLENGES OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM

UNIT 4. LEGAL INSTITUTIONS

REVIEW units 3 -4

UNIT 5. LEGAL SUBJECTS

UNIT 6. HUMAN RIGHTS

REVIEW units 5 -6

UNIT 7.CIVIL PROCEDURE AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE  CIVIL PROCEDURE AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

UNIT 8. UNJUST ENRICHMENT

REVIEW units 7-8

UNIT 9. HISTORY OF LAW

UNIT 10. COURT SYSTEM

REVIEW units 9-10

UNIT 11. LEGAL PROFESSIONALS

UNIT 12. A LAW FIRM STRUCTURE AND PRACTISE

REVIEW units 11 -12

UNIT 13. THE JURY

UNIT 14. IMPRISONMENT: RETRIBUTION OR REHIBILITATION

UNIT 15. LAW ENFORCEMENT

REVIEW units 13-15

GLOSSARY

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES & RESOURCES

UNIT 2. LEGAL SYSTEMS

Part 1

CIVIL LAW

Civil law systems, also called continental or Romano-Germanic legal systems, are found on all continents and cover about 60% of the world. They are based on concepts, categories, and rules derived from Roman law, with some influence of canon law, sometimes largely supplemented or modified by local custom or culture. The civil law tradition, though secularized over the centuries and placing more focus on individual freedom, promotes cooperation between human beings.

In their technical, narrow sense, the words civil law describe the law that pertains to persons, things, and relationships that develop among them, excluding not only criminal law but also commercial law, labor law, etc. Codification took place in most civil law countries, with the French Code civil and the German BGB being the most influential civil codes.

What the civil law is:

•A comprehensive system of rules and principles usually arranged in codes and easily accessible to citizens and jurists.

•A well organized system that favors cooperation, order, and predictability, based on a logical and dynamic taxonomy developed from Roman law and reflected in the structure of the codes.

•An adaptable system, with civil codes avoiding excessive detail and containing general clauses that permit adaptation to change.

•A primarily legislative system, yet leaving room for the judiciary to adjust rules to social change and new needs, by way of interpretation and creative jurisprudence.

Some salient features of the civil law:

•Clear expression of rights and duties, so that remedies are self-evident.

•Simplicity and accessibility to the citizen, at least in those jurisdictions where it is codified.

•Advance disclosure of rules, silence in the code to be filled based on equity, general principles, and the spirit of the law.

•Richly developed and to some extent transnational academic doctrine inspiring the legislature and the judiciary.

Where we find the civil law:

• In Continental Europe, where most jurisdictions have civil codes. In Great Britain, Scotland has retained an uncodified form of the civil law. Even when they have civil codes, Scandinavian countries are not regarded as civil law jurisdictions.

•In North America, civil codes are found in Louisiana and Quebec.

•In Central and South America, almost all countries have civil codes.

•In Asia, many countries have received the civil law and have civil codes, such as Indonesia, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, and Lebanon.

•Countries of Africa that once were colonized by continental European nations have kept many aspects of the civil law traditions. The Civil Code of Egypt has a significant influence in Africa and the Middle East, whilst the Roman-Dutch law applied in South Africa was never codified.

•Some remnants of the civil law traditions are to be found on some Pacific islands, especially in the French territories of New Caledonia or Tahiti.

•In mixed jurisdictions, chiefly found in America, Africa, and Asia, but also in Europe, the civil law coexists with other legal traditions such as the common law, customary law, or Islamic law.

Most nations today follow one of two major legal traditions: common law or civil law. The common law tradition emerged in England during the Middle Ages and was applied within British colonies across continents. The civil law tradition developed in continental Europe at the same time and was applied in the colonies of European imperial powers such as Spain and Portugal. Civil law was also adopted in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by countries formerly possessing distinctive legal traditions, such as Russia and Japan, that sought to reform their legal systems in order to gain economic and political power comparable to that of Western European nation-states.

To an American familiar with the terminology and process of our legal system, which is based on English common law, civil law systems can be unfamiliar and confusing. Even though England had many profound cultural ties to the rest of Europe in the Middle Ages, its legal tradition developed differently from that of the continent for a number of historical reasons, and one of the most fundamental ways in which they diverged was in the establishment of judicial decisions as the basis of common law and legislative decisions as the basis of civil law. Before looking at the history, let’s examine briefly what this means.

Common law is generally uncodified. This means that there is no comprehensive compilation of legal rules and statutes. While common law does rely on some scattered statutes, which are legislative decisions, it is largely based on precedent, meaning the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases. These precedents are maintained over time through the records of the courts as well as historically documented in collections of case law known as yearbooks and reports. The precedents to be applied in the decision of each new case are determined by the presiding judge. As a result, judges have an enormous role in shaping American and British law. Common law functions as an adversarial system, a contest between two opposing parties before a judge who moderates. A jury of ordinary people without legal training decides on the facts of the case. The judge then determines the appropriate sentence based on the jury’s verdict.

Civil Law, in contrast, is codified. Countries with civil law systems have comprehensive, continuously updated legal codes that specify all matters capable of being brought before a court, the applicable procedure, and the appropriate punishment for each offense. Such codes distinguish between different categories of law: substantive law establishes which acts are subject to criminal or civil prosecution, procedural law establishes how to determine whether a particular action constitutes a criminal act, and penal law establishes the appropriate penalty. In a civil law system, the judge’s role is to establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of the applicable code. Though the judge often brings the formal charges, investigates the matter, and decides on the case, he or she works within a framework established by a comprehensive, codified set of laws. The judge’s decision is consequently less crucial in shaping civil law than the decisions of legislators and legal scholars who draft and interpret the codes.

EXERCISES

1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell it in Russian.

2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the text below.

The term 1)_________ law derives from the Latin ius civile, the law applicable to all Roman cives or citizens. Its 2)_________ and model are to be found in the monumental compilation of Roman law commissioned by the Emperor Justinian in the3 )_________ century CE. While this compilation was lost to the West within decades of its creation, it was 4)_________ and made the basis for legal instruction in eleventh-century Italy and in the sixteenth century came to be known as Corpus 5)_________ civilis. Succeeding generations of legal scholars throughout Europe adapted the principles of ancient Roman law in the Corpus iuris civilis to contemporary needs. Medieval scholars of Catholic 6)_________ law, or canon 7)_________, were also influenced by Roman law 8)_________ as they compiled existing religious legal 9)_________ into their own comprehensive system of law and governance for the Church, an institution central to medieval culture, politics, and 10)_________ learning. By the late Middle Ages, these two laws, civil and canon, were taught at most universities and formed the 11)_________ of a shared body of legal 12)_________ common to most of Europe. The birth and evolution of the medieval civil law tradition based on Roman law was thus 13)_________ to European legal development. It 14)_________ a store of legal principles and rules invested with the authority of ancient Rome and centuries of distinguished jurists, and it held out the possibility of a comprehensive legal code providing substantive and procedural law for all 15)_________.

As civil law came into practice throughout Europe, the role of local custom as a source of law became increasingly important-particularly as growing European states sought to 16)_________ and organize their individual legal systems. Throughout the 17)_________ modern period, this desire generated scholarly attempts to systematize scattered, disparate legal 18)_________ and local customary laws and19 )_________ them into harmony with rational principles of civil law and natural law. Emblematic of these attempts is the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius’ 1631 work, Introduction to Dutch Jurisprudence, which synthesized Roman law and Dutch 20)_________ law into a cohesive whole. In the eighteenth century, the reforming aspirations of 21 )_________ rulers aligned with jurists’ desire to rationalize the law to produce comprehensive, systematic legal codes 22)_________ Austria’s 1786 Code of Joseph II and Complete Civil Code of 1811, Prussia’s Complete Territorial Code of 1794, and France’s Civil 23)_________ (known as the Napoleonic Code) of 1804. Such codes, shaped by the Roman law tradition, are the 24)_________ of today’s civil law systems.

3. Read the following article and make a rendering of it in English.

ЧЕМ АМЕРИКАНСКАЯ СИСТЕМА ПРАВОСУДИЯ ОТЛИЧАЕТСЯ ОТ РОССИЙСКОЙ? (часть 1)

Ирина Артёмова

Российские адвокаты изучили работу американской системы правосудия в Сан-Хосе штата Калифорния. Помимо знакомства с методами работы адвокатских компаний, они побывали на заседаниях судов, познакомились с деятельностью медиаторов, занимающихся досудебным урегулированием споров, изучили основы американской системы правосудия, пообщались с судьями.

О том, как устроена система правосудия в США, чем она отличается от нашей, рассказал участник поездки адвокат Свердловской областной гильдии адвокатов, медиатор, партнер Группы правовых компаний ИНТЕЛЛЕКТ-С Дмитрий Загайнов.

–   Российских юристов в последнее время будоражат планы введения адвокатской монополии на представительство интересов всех клиентов во всех судах. По этому поводу идут горячие споры. А как организована адвокатура в США?

–   Ни один выпускник юридической школы не может заниматься адвокатской деятельностью и даже давать консультации, если не получит доступ к профессии (лицензию на право заниматься адвокатской, юридической деятельностью). Даже штатные сотрудники неюридических компаний обязаны его иметь. Если корпоративный юрист даст консультацию, не имея лицензии, ему грозят крупный штраф и потеря репутации. Для получения доступа к профессии необходимо сдать экзамен и стать членом ассоциации юристов. Ассоциация выдает лицензии и лишает их, разрабатывает кодекс профессиональной этики адвокатов, в котором указывается, за что адвоката можно привлечь к ответственности.

–   Это требование распространяется только на адвокатов или также на прокуроров, судей?

–   На всех. Чтобы стать прокурором или судьей, нужно состоять в этой ассоциации. Должность судьи выборная. Каждый судья избирается населением на 10 лет. Кандидат в судьи должен иметь хороший послужной список, опыт работы как в адвокатуре, так и в прокуратуре. Тогда у него есть шансы на избрание.

–   Лицензия дает право представлять интересы клиента на всей территории США?

–   Нет, только в том штате, в котором она выдана. Поскольку США –   конфедерация, у них в разных штатах законы могут быть разными: например, в одном штате разрешено ношение оружия, в другом запрещено. Чтобы представлять интересы своего клиента в другом штате, нужно сдать там экзамен или привлечь к участию в процессе адвоката, имеющего лицензию в данном штате. В противном случае адвокат может только присутствовать в суде, быть консультантом. Выступать в суде он не может. У нас адвокат имеет право защищать клиента в любом городе и регионе.

Part 2

COMMON LAW AND EQUITY

Since the terms Common Law and Equity represent two branches or avenues of Law not created by legislation, we should get to know the difference between common law and equity. One understands Common Law to mean precedent or law created by decisions of the courts. Equity, on the other hand, is associated with the principles of fairness and equality. Although the tendency is to use the two terms synonymously, there are differences between the two that are more fully explained below.

Common Law is more popularly known as case law, precedent law or judge-made law. The reason for the above names is because Common Law, in fact, constitutes rules of law developed by the courts through its decisions. The origins of Common Law can be traced back to the early centuries to rules developed by the royal courts after the Norman Conquest in 1066. These rules developed by the royal courts were recorded and thereafter used as authority or as a guide for future cases or disputes. The decisions, therefore, were viewed as rules of law.

Today many countries, such as the United States of America, Canada and India, have as their basis the rules of Common Law, which is the law derived from the English Common Law system. The unique feature of Common Law is that unlike statute or legislation, Common L aw rules are developed on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the parties to a case are at odds in relation to the law applicable to the dispute at hand, the court will look to precedent or previous court decisions/reasoning to find a solution and apply it to the facts. If, however, the nature of the case is such that precedent does not directly apply, the court will take into account the present trends in society, practice and rules of law and thereafter deliver a judgment tailor-made for that particular case. This decision thereafter becomes precedent and therefore binding on any future cases of a similar nature. Common Law thus has a unique capability to adapt to the changing trends in society.

Equity is often referred to as the second branch of English law which originated after the introduction of Common Law. In medieval England, parties aggrieved by a decision of the court would petition the King to do justice regarding the harsh judgment. The King, in response to such petitions and complaints, in turn relied on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, who looked into the dispute and sought to deliver a «fair» outcome against the rigid principles of Common Law. The Lord Chancellor’s role in administering equity was thereafter transferred to a separate court called the Court of Chancery. Equity was developed with the intention of alleviating the harshness and inflexibility of the Common Law rules at the time or the rigid interpretations given to such rules by the Courts. A body of general principles developed and these general principles are more commonly known as maxims of equity. Some of these maxims include:

•Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy.

•He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.

Furthermore, where there was a conflict between Common Law and Equity, it was accepted that the rules of Equity prevailed. Principles governing Trusts, equitable interests over property and equitable remedies fall within the purview of Equity.

What is the difference between Common Law and Equity?

•Common Law is a body of law based on precedent or court decisions. Equity constitutes general principles and serves as a supplement to Common Law.

•Equity, simply put, is a form of legal relief in the event such relief cannot be found in the rules of common law.

•Equity is based on a judicial evaluation of fairness, reason, good faith and justice. Common Law entails applying the rules of common law to the issue before the court.

The increasing popularity of the Court of Chancery soon led to conflict with the common law courts. When there was a conflict between the two, equity would use a remedy which had the effect of preventing common law action from proceeding or prevent the common law judgement from being enforced. One such conflict occurred in the Earl of Oxford’s Case , where the court of common law ordered the payment of a debt. The debt had already been paid, but the deed giving rise to the obligation had not been cancelled. The court of equity was prepared to grant an order preventing this and ratifying the deed. It was ruled that, where there is a conflict between the common law and equity, equity will prevail. The conflict was finally put to rest by the setting up Judicature Acts in 1873-75 where the Supreme Court could now administered both rules of common law and equity.

One of the major differences between common law and equitable rights lies in the deficiencies of the common law remedy. When equity originally developed as a «gloss on the common law» according to Pettit, (3) it developed new remedies and recognized new rights where the common law fails to act. Therefore, equity provides a remedy where common law provides none or provides a more suitable remedy than common law. According to Lord Nicholls in AG v Blake (4) , «in general, legal rights and remedies remain distinct from equitable ones. Some overlap does, however, occur, for example, an injunction, an equitable remedy, can be sought for an anticipatory breach of contract, or to stop a nuisance, both common law claims». In this case, the House of Lords allowed the equitable remedy of account of profits for a claim for breach of contract where the common law remedy of damages would have been inadequate.

Equity has been important in supplementing many new remedies to the common law. Some of the most important are those of specific performance, injunction, rescission and rectification. A decree of specific performance compels the defendant to perform his side of the bargain while an injunction prevents someone from performing a certain act. The remedies developed by equity, are, distinct from the common law remedy of damages, subject to the discretion of the judge. Thus a judge will decide that, for claimants to be granted equitable remedies they must come to court with clean hands, they must have behaved equitably and must not have delayed in seeking the intervention of equity. Otherwise, if damages are an adequate remedy, then there is no need to substitute an equitable remedy.

3. Read the following article and make a rendering of it in English.

ЧЕМ АМЕРИКАНСКАЯ СИСТЕМА ПРАВОСУДИЯ ОТЛИЧАЕТСЯ ОТ РОССИЙСКОЙ? (часть 2)

Ирина Артёмова

–  Чем еще отличается американская система судопроизводства от российской?

– В США по большей части применяется прецедентная система. Для того, чтобы выиграть дело в суде, адвокатам необходимо найти прецедент из практики суда того штата, в котором дело рассматривается, и предложить принять такое же решение. Но в Луизиане, как и у нас, применяется континентальная система, когда защиту выстраивают не на прецедентах, а на толковании законов.

– Как строятся взаимоотношения в судебном заседании между защитником, обвинителем, судьей? Имеет ли представитель обвинения какие-то преференции, например, по представлению доказательств? Признает ли их судья изначально неоспоримыми? У нас такие проблемы, увы, имеются…

– Американских адвокатов больше волнует проблема выстраивания отношений с судьей, чем с прокурором. Они смотрят, кому дело распределено, чтобы просчитать, какое решение судья может принять. Один из наших преподавателей –   судья, ранее бывший прокурором –   рассказал нам, что у них внутри юридической корпорации резкого антагонизма между представителями разных юридических профессий не существует, по отношению к коллегам они ведут себя достаточно корректно, хамство не допускается. Мы побывали на нескольких заседаниях в разных судах. Оказалось, что все происходит как в кино, фильмы отражают реальное положение вещей. Судья ведет себя достаточно корректно, объясняет свою позицию присяжным, может пригласить защитника к себе в кабинет, чтобы что-то обсудить. Прокуроры и адвокаты стараются эмоционально воздействовать на присяжных, поскольку они –   простые граждане, на них нужно произвести впечатление (на судью эти приемы не влияют). Судья может даже пошутить.

– А если вторая сторона в споре – госорган? У нас суды нередко занимают его позицию.

– Если орган не прав и сторона защиты это доказала, спокойно отказывают представителю госоргана, фискальной службы. Но поскольку налоговая система в Штатах работает как часы, с налоговиками спорят редко, как правило, это делают крупные компании, когда начислены миллионные штрафы.

Part 3

RELIGIOUS LAW

Jewish Americans have been practicing their law called Halacha since their arrival in the United States. They also operate religious courts called Beth Din in which parties participate voluntarily.  These decisions are at times enforced by US courts.

Catholic Americans have a well-codified system of laws and courts called Canon Law.

The Mormons and the Amish often reject the American court system in favor of their own religious method of resolving many disputes.

Recently The Judicial Council which is the highest court in the United Methodist Church has been in the news. General synod serves as the highest court of Presbyterians in the USA.

Although most of these laws and courts deal with religious matters, some do act as arbitration for non-religious matters: For example, in the Diamond Dealers Club in New York, in a de facto diamond exchange «most disputes among diamond traders are settled by the Beth Din the Jewish court. Since the Beth Din has a reputation for fairness and is familiar with the diamond trade. This has not led to the imposition of Jewish law or the breakdown of the separation of church and state».

All these religious laws and courts operate on the voluntary consensual basis and are subject to our constitution.

Although Muslim Americans do not operate any court system, they practice Sharia every day in their lives. This is freedom of religion. And Americans have always wanted to keep it that way.

Based on Divine revelations Muslims believe that God sent prophets and guidance to all people and that is the source of a lot of shared ground between religions especially the Abrahamic faiths.

All the ten Commandments are found in Quran starting from worshiping only God to do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery and the respect for parents and the neighbors. The only difference is the Sabbath which is an exclusively biblical concept. Muslims are asked by God to close their business for Friday prayers but nothing beyond.

Observant Muslims live by these ideals. And just like many Christians in the US, many in the Muslim world show enthusiasm for the Ten Commandments as a code to live by.

Interestingly Sharia and Halacha both can be translated as the path or the way.

Just like Halacha, Sharia deals with both religious practice aspects such as daily prayers, fasting, charity as well as aspects of daily life such as personal hygiene, guidelines for financial transactions, and dietary regulations.

Both are not one book of codified law but have evolved over years in a body of religious literature named Sharia for Muslims and Halacha for Jews.

Observant Muslims and conservative and Orthodox Jews mostly follow their respective guides. Rabbis for Jews and Imams for Muslims mostly act as interpreter for their teachings.

Currently there is a strong movement involved in demonizing Islam and targeting Sharia. 49 bills have been introduced in 26 states proposing banning or severely restricting the practice of Sharia. Five states have already banned Sharia.

Banning of Sharia would mean banning practice of Islam. And that will be against the freedom of religion and contrary to the separation of church and state.

Observant Muslims live Sharia on a daily basis as we pray, fast and do charity. Muslims also practice Sharia routinely for marriage, birth, funeral rites, dietary specifications, and all other aspects of religious life.

Banning Sharia would have far reaching consequences in regards to freedom of religion.

That is why Jewish groups have started showing concerns. They are worried that if Sharia is banned, the Jewish Halacha may be next.  Many Jewish organizations are opposing the anti-Sharia bills. They acknowledge that such laws threaten religious freedom and would threaten Jewish practices of religion and more broadly Jewish law.

The anti Sharia laws are an attack on the culture of religious tolerance and harmony that American society has nurtured since the birth of this nation.

Religious law, and specifically Sharia law is what governs the lives of Muslims, it is what exhorts us to live justly, to help the needy, to be good to our neighbors, to take care of our families, and to be productive members of society. Banning Sharia would ban a Muslim’s way of life. Is giving into irrational fear worth this cost?

EXERCISES

1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell it in Russian.

2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the text below.

Our myths of the Thanksgiving holiday 1)________ on the pilgrims who came to the United States to 2)________ religious persecution of one Christian sect over the other. It became the cornerstone of our 3)________ to keep state and 4)________ independent of each other. It has been by and large a successful venture in keeping the state and the church flourishing independently.

Banning Sharia is 5)________ to be a historic departure from the historic consensus which has served our nation as the founding basis.

We must not 6)________ against any religion. All religions should be 7)________ equally in the USA.

Jewish Americans have been 8)________ their law called Halacha since their arrival in the United States. They also operate religious courts 9)________ Beth Din in which parties 10)________ voluntarily. These decisions are at times enforced by US courts. Catholic Americans have a well-codified system of laws and courts called Canon Law. The Mormons and the 11)________ often reject the American court system in favor of their own religious method of 12)________ many disputes. Recently The Judicial Council which is the highest court in the United Methodist Church has been in the news. General synod serves as the highest court of Presbyterians in the USA. Although 13)________ of these laws and courts deal with religious 14)________, some do act as arbitration for non-religious matters: For example, in the Diamond Dealers Club in New York, in a de facto 15)________ exchange «most disputes among diamond traders are settled by the Beth Din the Jewish court. Since the Beth Din has a reputation for fairness and is 16)________ with the diamond trade. This has not led to the imposition of Jewish law or the breakdown of the 17)________ of church and state». All these religious laws and courts operate on the voluntary 18)________ basis and are subject to our constitution. Although Muslim Americans do not operate any court system, they practice Sharia every day in their 19)________. This is freedom of religion. And Americans have always wanted to keep it that way. What is common between Jewish Halacha, Christian Laws, and Islamic Sharia? The Ten Commandments! Based on Divine revelations Muslims believe that God sent 20)________ and guidance to all people and that is the source of a lot of shared ground between religions 21)________ the Abrahamic faiths. All the ten Commandments are found in Quran starting from 22)________ only God to do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery and the respect for parents and the neighbors. The only 23)________ is the Sabbath which is an exclusively biblical concept. Muslims are 24)________ by God to close their business for Friday prayers but nothing beyond. Observant Muslims live by these ideals. And just like 25)________ Christians in the US, many in the Muslim world show enthusiasm for the Ten Commandments as a 26)________ to live by. Comparing Sharia with Halacha Interestingly Sharia and Halacha both can be translated as the path or the way. Just like Halacha, Sharia deals with both religious practice  27)________ such as daily prayers, fasting, charity as well as aspects of daily life such as personal 28)________, guidelines for financial transactions, and dietary regulations. Both are not one  29)________ of codified law but have 30)________ over years in a body of religious literature named Sharia for Muslims and Halacha for Jews. Observant Muslims and conservative and Orthodox Jews mostly follow their respective guides. Rabbis for Jews and 31)________ for Muslims mostly act as interpreter for their teachings. Banning Sharia is like banning freedom of 32)________ Currently there is a strong movement involved in demonizing Islam and targeting Sharia. 49 bills have been introduced in 26 states proposing banning or severely 33)________ the practice of Sharia.

3. Read the following article and make a rendering of it in English.

ЧЕМ АМЕРИКАНСКАЯ СИСТЕМА ПРАВОСУДИЯ ОТЛИЧАЕТСЯ ОТ РОССИЙСКОЙ? (часть 3)

Ирина Артёмова

– Есть в американском суде состязательность сторон? Может ли адвокат представлять свои доказательства, а не только оспаривать те, что представлены прокуратурой?

– Адвокаты по уголовным делам не жаловались на то, что им запрещают добывать и представлять свои доказательства. По гражданским делам таких проблем вообще нет, так как у них существует обязательный досудебный обмен документами, стороны должны раскрыть свои доказательства, на которые они будут ссылаться, оппонентам. Адвокат может самостоятельно допрашивать свидетеля, оформлять его показания и представлять их в суде в качестве письменных доказательств. Суд, если сочтет необходимым, может вызвать свидетеля и еще раз допросить. Мы спрашивали: реальна ли состязательность сторон или это только видимость? Судьи сказали, что аргументы защиты и обвинения они заслушивают очень внимательно. Бывает и так, причем нередко, когда судья заходит в дело с одним представлением, а после заслушивания доводов меняет свою точку зрения. Из чего я делаю вывод, что состязательность там присутствует.

– Сколько стоят услуги адвоката, есть ли в США бесплатные адвокатские услуги для социально незащищенных граждан?

– У компаний, с которыми мы работали, нет социальной направленности. Они рассматривают адвокатскую деятельность как полноценный бизнес, и тот, кто к ним приходит, должен оплачивать эту работу. Оплата –   почасовая, в среднем 400 долларов за час. В США есть подобие социальной адвокатуры, это адвокаты по назначению, но и они работают не бесплатно, их труд оплачивает не государство, как у нас, а ассоциация адвокатов.

–  Как выявляют плохих адвокатов?

–  У них существует рейтинги, в которых присутствуют все крупные юридические компании. Кроме этого, есть рейтинги успешных дел адвокатов. Любой может получить досье адвоката: где учился, где работал, в каких делах принимал участие, есть ли за ним дисциплинарная практика. В то же время адвокаты подчеркивают, что большая часть клиентов приходит в фирму только по рекомендациям: если качество работы адвоката кому-то понравилось, его рекомендуют знакомым. В то же время за деятельностью адвокатов наблюдает ассоциация. Хорошим мотиватором для добросовестного исполнения обязанностей является клятва. У нас тоже есть кодекс профессиональной этики адвокатов, под которым юристы подписываются при получении звания адвоката. Есть и адвокатские палаты, которые занимаются разбором дисциплинарной практики. Но у американцев адвокат может лишиться лицензии, если нарушит клятву и будет уличен в этом. У нас таких последствий не предусмотрено, особенно для не адвокатов. Поэтому, когда в процессе встречаются адвокат и не адвокат, получается, что адвокат связан нормами корпоративной этики, а другой юрист нет, и может делать все что хочет. Кодекс этики поведения должен распространяться на всех юристов без исключения, должен быть страх потери лицензии, чтобы не вести себя недостойным образом, не заниматься фальсификацией доказательств, не подделывать документы, не вводить суд в заблуждение. Когда юрист приходит в процесс и понимает, что его поведение может быть оценено не только с точки зрения закона, но и с позиций норм корпоративной юридической деятельности, это дисциплинирует.

Part 4

SHARIA LAW

This is adapted from the chapter «Shari’a and Islamic Family Law: Transition and Transformation» by Professor Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im in Islamic Family Law in a Changing World: A Global Resource Book. Professor An-Na’im shows us that Islamic Family Law (IFL) is not the same as Shari’a. Since IFL is based on human interpretation and judgment, it is not a divine order from God to Muslims. It can be changed based on new interpretations in order to achieve justice and equality for Muslim women in their families and communities today.

The pronunciation key is intended to give English-speaking readers a close approximation of the word in Arabic. It can not provide a perfect equivalent, however, because some Arabic sounds do not exist in English. We have chosen to use the widely-used Common Era (also known as Christian or Gregorian) calendar, rather than the Islamic Hijri (AH) calendar. Common Era dates end in CE.

In Arabic, the word «shari’a» means «way» or «path». It is pronounced SHA-ree-ah. Shari’a is not a legal system. It is the overall way of life of Islam, as people understand it according to traditional, early interpretations. These early interpretations date from 700 to 900 CE, not long after the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) died in 632 CE. Shari’a can evolve with Islamic societies to address their needs today.

Shari’a was not revealed by Allah (God). It is based on the Qur’an and things the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) said and did. Some of the sources of Shari’a, such as the Qur’an, are considered divine (or the «word of God») by Muslims. However, Shari’a was created by people who interpreted the Qur’an and the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH).

To understand how Shari’a came about, it’s important to understand a little bit about history. The Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) is believed to have been born in 570 CE. The Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad(PBUH) starting around 610 CE. Early Muslims followed the guidance of the Qur’an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). If they had a question, they could just ask him. After he died, people would ask their questions to the Prophet’s family and friends – people who had a good idea of what he might have answered. The Prophet’s friends and family would often tell stories about things the Prophet said or did, to help explain their answers. These stories came to be called Hadith.

It wasn’t long before the Prophet’s friends and family–  and everyone who knew him–  had died. People needed a way to figure out answers based on the Qur’an and Hadith. They started looking for patterns – «Did the Prophet(PBUH) always give the same kind of answer in similar situations?» – and principles – «Does the Qur’an tell us to be compassionate in many different situations?» These patterns and principles were put together into a system, along with specific rules in the Qur’an and Hadith, so people could figure out the answers to their questions. The people who put the traditional interpretations of Shari’a together also included some other things, like common practices from their time and cultural practices from their area of the world.

As time went on, people had new questions about new problems. Religious scholars could use Shari’a to try to figure out what people should do. The goal was to try to get as close as possible to what the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) would have said if he were still around. When early scholars interpreted Shari’a, it was called ijtihad.

Even very religious, well-educated scholars could make mistakes, though. Sometimes they disagreed with each other. That is why there are different Islamic schools of thought, called madhahib.

Yes. Shari’a isn’t a legal system. It includes Islamic principles to help guide people to new answers, and it includes common cultural practices that had to do with a specific time and place in history. Muslim rulers wanted a way to make Shari’a into law. To do that, they decided which rules needed to be laws, first. Then they used interpretations of Shari’a to show people that the new laws were Islamic. The result was what we call Islamic Law.

Islamic Law is always based on someone’s interpretation of the Shari’a (which is an interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith). Because it is a human interpretation, Islamic Law can mean different things in different places and at different times in history.

Today, interpretations of Shari’a are usually still limited to rules of interpretation (called usul al-fiqh) that were established by early scholars before 900 CE. More recently scholars have called for new ijtihad to meet the changing needs of modern Islamic societies.

Many Islamic countries believe they are following Shari’a in family law matters, but Shari’a is not a legal system. These countries actually use some kind of Islamic Law in family matters, and in all other matters apply European-style law left over from colonization. Iran, Saudi Arabia and a few other countries claim that most of their laws are based on Shari’a, but, in fact, most of those laws are secular. Even those laws which come from Islamic Law are different from place to place because they are interpreted by people–  and those people are influenced by their culture.

Still, Islamic Law is followed by many Muslims as a way of life, not as law. In that case, it is a personal choice, based on the person’s own understanding and beliefs.

Today, many Islamic countries use some version of Islamic Family Law (also called «IFL» in this article), even if they use secular laws for all other kinds of laws.

IFL is a type of law that covers topics like marriage, divorce, custody of children and the status of women. It also may be called Muslim Personal Status Law. The idea of IFL was introduced by European colonial powers. Colonial governments separated the field of family law from the rest of Shari’a, then enforced IFL as national law, according to European models of government. All other fields of law came under secular European-style laws.

EXERCISES

1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell it in Russian.

2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the text below.

Early Islamic 1)__________ were ruled by caliphs (from Arabic «khalifa» 2)–  such as Al-Khulafa al-Rashidun (the «Rightly-Guided Caliphs»)–  and later by kings and emperors. These 3)__________ mixed Islamic ideas with secular rules that were already in 4)__________ or that had been the common practice. These early Muslim 5)__________ did not have what we now call «law», with the 6)__________ making laws that apply to all people and enforcing the laws everywhere in the same way. Communities of Muslims 7)__________ Shari’a in their own informal ways. Over time, laws changed. Some new rulers tried to bring the 8)__________ closer to Islamic Law–  as they understood it at the time, which might have been different from how 9)__________ rulers understood it. Others introduced new secular laws based on culture or their personal goals.

Almost all Islamic 10)__________ were controlled by European, non-Islamic countries. This was called colonization, and the Islamic countries were called colonies or protectorates of the European nations that 11)__________ them. The European countries in power, such as Britain and France, were called colonial powers. These countries 12)__________ their own laws and practices and put them to use in the Islamic countries they controlled.

Before colonization, Shari’a was observed by Muslims, but it was not enforced by government. Colonization 13)__________ that.

Traditional application of Shari’a by 14)__________ was replaced by European-style laws that were developed so the government could enforce them.

For example, before colonization, the parties in a legal case would select the madhab (school of thought) they 15)__________ to apply to their case. They would select a judge (qadi) who was an expert in that madhab and present their case. That way both parties gave the judge the authority to make a decision. They knew the judgment was 16)__________ with their own beliefs, and they could accept that the 17)__________ of the judge was valid. During colonial rule, that traditional choice was no longer possible. European legal codes were 18)__________ and applied by the government, according to its own authority. People didn’t have a choice in the matter: they had no choice which madhab they wanted to follow or which judge they wanted to consult.

This happened in all fields of law, but it happened differently in family law. Sharia was supposed to continue to 19)__________ to family law. Even in family law matters, though, government officials selected particular principles of Shari’a to be 21)__________ into laws, based on their own preference. Sometimes the rulers mixed very different views from different scholars, 22)__________ them into rules that none of the scholars would accept as valid.

3. Read the following article and make a rendering of it in English.

ЧЕМ АМЕРИКАНСКАЯ СИСТЕМА ПРАВОСУДИЯ ОТЛИЧАЕТСЯ ОТ РОССИЙСКОЙ? (часть 4)

Ирина Артёмова

–   Могут американцы подавать иск в суд, не обращаясь к адвокату?

–  В некоторых случаях. Как правило, гражданин не может подать даже жалобу или инициировать процесс без адвоката. Считается, что написание иска –   работа специфическая, ее должен делать компетентный специалист, и к нему надо обращаться. Гражданин, когда пишет исковое заявление самостоятельно, может в нем описывать всю свою жизнь, а не указывать юридически значимые обстоятельства и ссылки на нормы права. Это мешает судье сразу разобраться: какое право нарушено, какую защиту хочет получить человек. Такой подход к подаче иска делает судебный процесс более дорогим и заставляет граждан искать несудебные способы урегулирования конфликтов.

–  Как часто применяются примирительные процедуры?

– У них очень развита досудебная практика урегулирования конфликтов, особенно гражданских. Адвокаты встречаются и решают: идти в суд или нет. Суд тоже активно использует процедуру медиации. Если судья видит, что спор может быть решен другим путем, он рекомендует обратиться в организации, которые занимаются либо посредничеством, либо медиацией: это и частные организации, и аккредитованные при судах. В основном медиацией занимаются бывшие судьи. Они улаживают коммерческие и семейные споры, причинение вреда окружающей среде. Иногда к медиаторам обращаются как к независимым экспертам, чтобы оценить: какое может быть принято решение по тому или иному делу. Медиатор может готовить проект будущего судебного решения. Если стороны не пришли к решению вопроса после медиации, медиатор может направить в суд проект судебного решения, где изложит, как спор можно решить, и суд может это решение принять. В нашей практике такого точно нет. Кстати, такая практика позволяет разгрузить судей, у них нет такого наплыва дел, как у нас.

–  Суды в США тоже делятся на гражданские, уголовные, арбитражные?

– Да, только это делается не так, как у нас. Например, в здании арбитражного суда рассматривалась апелляционная жалоба по уголовному делу, после чего тот же судья сразу начал рассматривать иск немецкой фирмы к компании «Гугл». У судей специализации, похоже, нет. Дела распределяет компьютер, судья заранее не знает, какое дело ему попадется: уголовное или гражданское.

–  А у адвокатов есть специализация?

–  Да. Крупные компании стараются охватить все вопросы. Есть фирмы, которые специализируются на беловоротничковой преступности (делах об экономическом шантаже, элементах коррупции, взятках), они не берутся за дела, связанные с насилием, убийствами. Фирмы, занимающиеся гражданскими делами, неплохо зарабатывают на недвижимости. Они сопровождают все сделки купли-продажи. Есть компании, специализирующиеся на налоговых спорах, защите интеллектуальной собственности. Около 40% адвокатов занимаются частной практикой, открывают свои кабинеты.

–  А как обстоят дела с коррупцией?

– Коррупция у них есть, но она носит завуалированный характер в виде получения разрешений, устройства в какое-то учебное заведение и т. п. Открытых взяток там не дают. Есть и комиссия, которая отслеживает проявления коррупции. Как только к какому-то судье поступает такое предложение, он обязан об этом сразу доложить. Если он этого не сделает, то потеряет право заниматься юридической деятельностью навсегда.