Companies, such as companies in society, particularly operate in economic, political and legal environments. The legal environment is a result of government intervention from the state (state) and the positive methods recognized and sanctioned by the positive law. Historically, the legal environment has usually been defined nationally, although researchers have tried to group legal systems into different groups based on their similarities and differences.
A student of this subject would normally argue that there are two basic groups of legal systems that have traditionally opposed: the Anglo-Saxon (Anglo-American) model and the Continental European Law. But even though both main systems in teams may have their features listed, there are actually too many convergence in recent times. Previously, the common law (Anglo-Saxon) model should be based primarily on precedent, and the continental European law should be based primarily on codifications.
However, there is an ever-increasing regulatory activity in Anglo-Saxon countries, with a number of codifications taking place as a judiciary capable of enforcing the consistency of court proceedings. In either system, a judge can take a stand to create a precedent, but the sources of precedent would differ materially. The growing empirical literature has attempted to prove the overall superiority of the Anglo-Saxon model. Although it is clear that economies in Anglo-Saxon countries can do comparatively better than others in the long term, it is not empirically confirmed that the growth that occurs over a period of time can directly be attributed to the legal system's characteristics (legal environment).
The legal system, although classified into larger groups, is fundamentally strongly influenced by national colors and experiences of judicial development, especially in revolutionary environments (when there is a sudden change in development). Researchers studying legal environments today would focus more on the independence of the judiciary from the state and politicians. It is thought that if the judiciary consistently protects property rights, even from the state, development results will improve, and in jurisprudence judges have historically been more likely to maintain the sanctuary for private property rights.
Ex post judging is much better when answering local information, rather than applying abstract law, which governs the principles. But to a greater extent, the common law uses the countries to issue laws and codes to better capture different legal areas. In the United States, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is probably the best example. Growth in legislative activity can also be seen as a sign of future struggle between the judiciary and legislative power for dominant social influence. Recently, the Political Delegation discussed that it is necessary to at least formally exclude all institutions in the state of the highest democratically elected body in the country (meeting, parliament, etc.), even if it is controlled exclusively by politicians.
Literature has also defined a common legal system as one judge exercises discretion in order to determine cases in an independent and / or adaptive manner, while the state in continental European countries would check the legal outcome and the content of the law as well. The basic prerequisite for change between the two wider legal groups has been the perception of the extent to which the legal practice may affect the future judicial decision taken by the court. It is a fact that precedents in the Anglo-Saxon countries are a source of law and they must be considered in the future when the law is required in a similar situation. But even though the continental European judicial system is not a formal legal basis, judges take into account previous practices to ensure consistency in acting in court and in the country.
In comparative law, literature is quite often focused on a set of five parameters, such as (1) legal incentives; (2) Exogenous Legal Human Capital (3) Processing Disputes in Legally Incorrect Judicial Human Capital 4) The cost of producing evidence and legal arguments. and (5) the sanctions (damages) contained in the ruling. The legal incentives can be influenced by how their independence is defined. Often in the analysis, legal independence is high, especially since it is believed to be an important feature of the Anglo-Saxon model, which contributed to its better results. In the US model, over 80 percent of the officials are subject to any form of election, re-election or withdrawal of voting.