It was the Justinian Code, Corpus Juris Civilas that led to what we know today as Continental Law. Written in latin it was a stoccato that encompassed the entirety of Roman Law in such a manner that it could be applied by magistracies. It was derived from the Roman system where magistrates were executive positions and consequently came with the idea of imperium. The English system of common law derived somewhat, but not entirely, separately and led to a greater separation of powers and independent judiciary.

The Continental System requires well trained magistrates as well as lawyers. The Byzantine system had sufficient magistrates to make the system to work, but with the proliferation of the legal system into Europe it was not until law schools in the 1100s pumped out enough magistrates and lawyers that it sufficiently sustainable. Even today students at law school in France and Germany have to choose to specialize early on as either an attorney or magistrate. Cantor writes:

There was no jury in the Justinian-type court, no half dozen or dozen representatives of soceity to consider the facts of the case and decide on guilt or innocence. In modern times some continental countries added a jury to give a more democratic mien to the court system. But the jury deliberates with the magistrates and has none of the independence of a common-law type jury.

Continental Law systems are effective in civil and criminal cases; they were also good in ensuring social order; however they are overly reliant on well trained judges to operate efficiently and are susceptible to corruption as executive policy can quickly become judicial policy; for instance during the Napoleonic years.

More Reading on Roman law

• Roman Law
• Continental Law
• Common Law
• Canon Law
• Norman F. Cantor
• Athenian, Roman and Anglic Legal Cohesion
• Continental Law vs Common Law