English Legal System and the European Courts

¶ … English Legal System and the European Courts

The English Legal System is the product of an evolution of a body of laws that has been developed since the 11th century to present day. This body of law includes many organs or institutions that have been mimicked in other nations' legal systems, including the United States. The key legal institutions that make up the English Legal System include Parliament, the Courts, and the Executive institution, which is made up from the largest party in the House of Commons. (Gillespie, A., 2010) These three individual organs of the legal system are balanced against each other, similar to the way that the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches are in U.S. law. However, in the English Legal System, the Parliament wields the legislative power under an unwritten British Constitution. Also, the British did not believe in complete separation of powers like the framers of the U.S. Constitution did.

Parliament is responsible for introducing and passing laws, just as the U.S. legislative branch is. Parliament is made up of two different houses or groups. The lower house is called the House of Parliament where members are directly elected. The upper house is called the House of Lords which grants Parliamentary positions to people based upon birthright and heritage (Wilson, et. al., 2001). However, in the late 1990's, most of these birthright positions were eliminated in favor of a primarily popularly-elected Parliament (Gillespie, A., 2010).

The Crown Court and the Supreme Court are the courts where criminal trials take place. These are where laws are upheld and enforced. However, England being a common-law country, it is one of the few that do not have a codified set of laws (Gillespie, A., 2010). Other Commonwealth countries do have codified laws however. The Executive body is part of the Parliament in that it is made up of members of Parliament, both Houses. Each house has a separate court and a Court of Appeals exists as well. This makes up the judiciary branch of English Law. These courts interpret the laws while the executive body enforces them.

The European Court of Justice is the highest court relative to matters of European Union law. It interprets EU law and helps to make sure that the laws' applications are equal across the EU and each member state. This court is based in the European country of Luxembourg and was established in 1952 after many European nations had begun to rebuild both economically and politically after World War Two (Wilson, et. al., 2001). One distinction that should be made about the European Court of Justice is that it is only the highest authority of EU law relative to community law. It is not the highest authority relative to each member nation (Wilson, et. al., 2001). Each of these members has their own legal system with their own courts.

The European Court of Justice has 13 Grand Judges who work together to maintain that EU law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties of the European Union. This court has worked for nearly 60 years to help stimulate positive growth and EU member state integration.

The European Court of Human Rights was established in 1959 after the European Convention of Human Rights (Zander, M., 2007). The court itself works to uphold this convention and caters to those who have grievances related to human rights issues in EU member states. The court has been a popular place for those with grievances to be heard with over 100,000 pending applications in 2009.

The major difference between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice is that the ECJ enforces EU laws relative to EU membership and interaction while the ECHR helps to uphold the convention established in Europe guaranteeing basic human rights for all member states. These two separate areas of jurisdiction help to separate the powers and reach of the courts.

The impact of having a wider international legal system is quite huge, given that the international system is as large as the EU. Each member state has to work with other member states in coming up with a standard or convention that the ECHR upholds. This took place over 50 years ago, but since that time the ECHR has heard tens of thousands of cases (Zander, M., 2007). Each case brings to light the strengths and weaknesses of each member state and their commitment to the convention that was ratified by all member states. In this way, the court has an overarching jurisdiction or perspective with which to influence the future human rights policies and behaviors of not only the entire EU as a whole, but each individual member state.

The EJC has actually helped to strengthen ties between member states by helping to highlight and remedy many of the initial flaws in the EU legal system (Zander, M., 2007). Also, since each member state is represented in court, the presence of the ECJ helps promote communication and commitment to future diplomacy between each member state.

The advantages to a wider international legal system are many. One of the largest is the fact that common laws and jurisdiction prevail in a large multi-state area. This helps to guarantee compliance with the laws and codes that are upheld by the EJC (Zander, M., 2007). It also helps to solidify or focus the intentions and legal goals of many member states into one body of motion or action. In this way the entire EU can act as one in legal matters relevant to their own internal struggles or conflicts. It also creates a common sounding board or connection between states which can sometimes possess strained relations during specific periods in history. The EJC and ECHR help to resolve conflicts in this manner in a way that is lasting and respected by all EU member states.