Ancient India represented a distinct legal tradition and had a historically independent school of legal theory and practice. The Arthashastra of 400 BC. A.D. and the Manusmriti of 100 A.D. They were influential treatises in India, texts considered authoritative legal advice.  Manu`s central philosophy was tolerance and pluralism and has been cited throughout Southeast Asia.  At the beginning of this period, which culminated in the creation of the Gupta Empire, relations with ancient Greece and Rome were not uncommon. The emergence of similar fundamental institutions of international law in different parts of the world shows that they are inherent in international society, independent of culture and tradition.  Interstate relations in the pre-Islamic period led to clear rules of war of high humanitarian level, rules of neutrality, treaty law, customary law enshrined in religious charters, in the exchange of messages of a temporary or semi-permanent nature.  Whatever their origin, most legal systems agree on certain fundamental premises. First, no one can be guilty of a crime if the offence has not been previously defined as such and if the sentence has not been pronounced through a legal procedure. This implies the need to clarify criminal law, prohibit its retroactive effect and certain notions of “fair trial” and the availability of a lawyer. Second, no one can be prosecuted twice for the same thing.
Third, it is a crime to attempt a crime or conspire with others to commit one. Fourth, an alleged criminal must have a certain mindset to be convicted of the crime. Scotland maintains a separate criminal justice system from the rest of the United Kingdom, with the High Court of Justice being the court of last resort for criminal appeals. The highest court of appeal in civil cases in Scotland is now the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (prior to October 2009, final appellate jurisdiction was vested in the House of Lords).  Indictment – A procedure whereby a person accused of committing a crime is brought to trial, informed of the charges, and asked to plead guilty or not guilty. The investigating judge then submits the file with his conclusions to the President of the Chamber, who decides on the case in which it has been decided that the proceedings should be initiated. Therefore, the view of the President of the Chamber on the case is not neutral and may be biased in the conduct of the proceedings after reading the file. Unlike common law procedures, in the Inquisition system, the presiding judge is not only an arbitrator and has the right to examine witnesses directly during the trial or to comment, as long as he does not comment on the guilt of the accused. Prior to 1938, federal courts, like almost all other common law courts, decided the law on any matter on which the competent legislature (either the United States Congress or the state legislature, depending on the subject) had not acted by applying to courts of the same system, that is, to other federal courts, even on questions of state law.
and even if there was no explicit grant of powers by Congress or the Constitution. Cardozento`s new “rule” does not exist in any earlier case, but cannot be derived as a synthesis of the principle of the “thing of danger” mentioned therein and extends it only to the “foreseeable danger”, even if “the purposes for which it was designed” would not themselves be “a source of great danger”. MacPherson is careful to present himself as a predictable development, not a wild departure. Cardozo continues to adhere to Winterbottom`s original principle that “absurd and outrageous consequences” must be avoided, and he does so by drawing a new line in the last sentence quoted above: “There must be knowledge of a danger, not only possible, but probable.” But while MacPherson stuck to the underlying principle that a limit is necessary, he went beyond the previous common law by rendering completely irrelevant the once dominant factor in the boundary, that is, the formality of connectedness that arises from a contractual relationship between persons. On the contrary, the most important factor within the limit would be the nature of the item being sold and the foreseeable uses that downstream buyers would make of the thing. Most systems accept that criminal responsibility is not attributable to specific groups of people: very young children or people with serious mental illness. The systems also recognize a number of mitigating circumstances such as self-defence or provocation. The common law can be described as a ____ system.
The presiding judge determines which precedents apply to that particular case. The example of higher courts is binding for cases heard by lower courts. This system promotes stability and consistency in the U.S. judicial system. However, lower courts may choose to change or depart from precedents if they are outdated or if the current case is materially different from the previous one. Lower courts may also choose to set a precedent, but this rarely happens. The most important sources for the history of common law in the Middle Ages are advocacy scrolls and directories. The Advocacy Rolls, which were the official court records of the Common Pleas and King`s Bench courts, were written in Latin.
The scrolls were assembled in packages according to the legal terms: Hilary, Easter, Trinity and Michaelmas or winter, spring, summer and autumn.