In this paper, I offer an analysis of the different understandings of ‘system’ in connection with the two main Western legal traditions. In the continental ‘civil law’ tradition, ‘system’ is used in relation to the substance of the law, whereas in the English ‘common law’ tradition ‘system’ is rather used in relation to the functioning of the law, in the sense of finding solutions to legal problems that are consistent with earlier ones. I explain these different uses from a historical point of view: in the civil law tradition the notion of system goes back to the exposition of substantive legal doctrine, which – under the influence of Stoic thought – was already developed by lawyers in the Roman Republic, and for the first time elevated to statute by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian, whereas in the common law tradition the Byzantine-Roman organisation was not taken over, and system rather connotes with the manner in which conflicts can be resolved on a case-by-case manner, and hence has come to refer to the machinery of law. These different meanings may pose a challenge where legal unity is sought between jurisdictions that belong to different traditions.

中文翻译：

---

普通法和民法传统中“系统”的含义：法律统一的两种途径

在本文中，我将分析与西方两种主要法律传统有关“系统”的不同理解。在大陆的“民法”传统中，“系统”与法律的实质有关，而在英国的“普通法”传统中，“系统”与法律的功能有关，寻找与早期问题相一致的法律问题的解决方案。我从历史的角度解释了这些不同的用法：在民法传统中，系统的概念可以追溯到实体法律学说的阐述，在斯托克思想的影响下，该法律学说已经由罗马共和国的律师提出，并首次由拜占庭皇帝查士丁尼（Justinian）升格为法令，而在普通法传统中，拜占庭-罗马组织并未被接管，而系统更确切地说明了可以逐案解决冲突的方式，因此已成为法律的机制。在属于不同传统的司法管辖区之间寻求法律统一时，这些不同的含义可能会带来挑战。