This paper reviews scholarly literature to evaluate the effectiveness of common law in resolving disputes among private citizens. The analysis defines common law as a body of rules and principles established through judicial precedent, tracing its origins in English jurisprudence to modern American practice. The paper examines the doctrine of stare decisis as a mechanism providing predictability for litigants, while acknowledging critiques regarding economic efficiency. The research concludes that common law provides a robust framework for dispute resolution in most cases, offering private citizens a mutual reference point and legal predictability superior to legislative intervention, though effectiveness varies by legal domain.
In the United States today, common law refers to the body of rules and principles established over centuries through countless judicial decisions that set precedents for future similar cases. Although common law can evolve in response to social, political, and economic forces, it has provided a consistent framework in which disputes can be resolved more easily and efficiently by avoiding the need to reinvent legal solutions every time a property or rights controversy emerges. This paper reviews relevant literature to determine the effectiveness of common law in resolving disputes among private citizens.
According to Black's Law Dictionary (1990), common law is "distinguished from statutory law [and] comprises the body of those principles and rules of action ... which derived their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs" (p. 276). However, as Scott (2007) notes, "Any reliable definition of the common law is a description of what it is and where it came from, for attempts to define the common law in a dictionary sense will only gloss over the important nuances that characterize it" (p. 184). This distinction highlights the difference between formal definitions and the nuanced understanding necessary for legal analysis.
Beyond Black's definition, understanding the antecedents and constituent elements of common law is essential. Scott explains that "The term common law came to mean in England the body of rational legal principles which were declared and administered by the King's Judges as opposed to the special customs or privileges of any county or borough" (2007, p. 185). In other words, common law provided equity for private citizens in an era of privilege and fragmented local customs. It represented a movement toward uniform, rational legal principles administered across the realm.
The sources of common law extend beyond royal jurisprudence, however. As Scott further explains, "The origin is borne out of the Church, natural law, customs, and King's Law. The common law courts were charged with the duty of deciding cases in accord with all four of these categories" (2007, p. 185). This multifaceted foundation—combining ecclesiastical tradition, philosophical principles of natural law, established customs, and royal authority—created a legal system designed to balance competing sources of legitimate rules. This complexity has enabled common law to adapt and endure while maintaining internal coherence. For more on the historical development of common law in English jurisprudence, see foundational legal history scholarship.
Because common law has such a lengthy history in the Western world, many authorities maintain that it is well-suited to the resolution of disputes between private citizens. Bogus (2011) reports that "Private disputes should not be resolved by legislatures, where decisions are influenced by politics and the relative power of the parties, but adjudicated by courts" (p. 123). Although this principle is accepted as standard practice today, the situation differed dramatically as late as the mid-19th century, when general assemblies served as both legislatures and courts and were used to resolve private disputes such as divorces (Bogus, 2011).
This historical shift reflects recognition that courts provide a more appropriate forum for private dispute resolution than legislatures. Courts, theoretically insulated from direct political pressure, can apply legal principles impartially rather than responding to factional interests. Legislative resolution of private disputes creates incentives for powerful parties to influence lawmakers, undermining equal treatment under law.
Although the process may achieve more effective resolutions, not all legal analysts agree that common law results in greater economic efficiency. Webster (2004) argues that "the common law in the U.S. results in economically less efficient outcomes" (p. 40). Despite this criticism, the common law doctrine of stare decisis provides a reliable set of principles by which private litigants can reasonably anticipate legal outcomes.
Black's Law Dictionary (1990) defines stare decisis as "to abide by or adhere to decided cases and the policy of courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled points" (p. 1406). According to Webster (2004), "Judges tend to adhere to the principle of stare decisis, in which precedent is binding upon subsequent cases. Stare decisis requires that courts behave impartially and universally when applying the law, and discourages courts from deciding cases on the basis of propositions that it would be unwilling to apply to all similarly situated disputants" (p. 41). This mechanism creates predictability: parties entering litigation can examine prior cases with similar facts and reasonably forecast the legal outcome. Such predictability enables efficient settlement negotiations and reduces frivolous litigation, as parties understand the likely judicial resolution.
The effectiveness of common law in resolving disputes among private citizens depends, in some cases, on the area of law involved. Cases amenable to arbitration may be particularly appropriate for the application of common law principles. According to Schill (2012), "The emerging common law of arbitral procedure, which is rather independent of specific arbitral rules, applies to the resolution of private disputes" (p. 296). This observation suggests that common law's effectiveness is not uniform across all legal domains. In arbitration and contractual disputes, common law principles provide particularly reliable frameworks. In statutory areas where legislatures have comprehensively codified rules, common law's role is necessarily more limited.
The research shows that common law comprises a body of rules and principles established by legal decisions that provide a mutual frame of reference in which private litigants can effectively resolve their disputes. Although the doctrine of stare decisis is not without its flaws, it provides private citizens with some degree of assurance concerning the outcomes of a private dispute in ways that would not be possible if they were forced to resort to legislative acts in a process that could outlast them. Although unique situations will always arise where common law has few or no applicable precedents, the vast majority of disputes between private citizens today have occurred in the past. The legal decisions in those historical cases provide a useful framework for deciding current disputes in modern common law systems. Common law thus remains an effective mechanism for private dispute resolution, grounded in centuries of accumulated legal wisdom and refined through the principle of stare decisis.
You’re 98% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.