There are certain general categories of legal tradition that differentiate legal systems by country or time. These legal traditions are shared by a certain group or whole systems and make it possible to identify different legal families. In other words, from understanding the legal tradition in which each legal system is affiliated it is possible to speak of different  legal families. However, even though a national legal system can belong to an identified  legal family, simultaneously, at the local or “communitary” jurisdiction, a diverse legal system belonging to a different legal tradition can exist. Indeed, “It is difficult to point to one country that has a pure legal tradition without influence from other systems. For historical reasons, as well as political and economic influences, the legal systems of countries are often an amalgamation of various legal systems, incorporating elements of different legal traditions.”[i]

Canada is an example of this situation: its national system belongs to the common law tradition, while the legal system in the province of Québec belongs to the Civil Law tradition. Another example can be found among the different Latin American countries with indigenous populations, whose national systems belong to the Civil Law family and, simultaneously, in more reduced territorial jurisdictions, the so called indigenous consuetudinary law is applied; including with respect to electoral matters.

Indeed, there are several legal families derived from a common origin or past, from similar institutions, from a language code or shared concepts, from the similarity of the sources of the law, from the community of proceedings and the methods or techniques used by jurists, as well as from the similar philosophical, economic or political principles which inform each legal system. 

Knowing the family in which each national legal system belongs is useful to widen the perspective of the institution or the electoral process, as well as to obtain a more informed and reliable understanding of differences among legal systems. 

Since the study must take into account the family which the system belongs to and consider its cultural, economic, political and social contexts, the translation of terminology can be problematic when trying to understand, explain or compare a certain country’s or countries’ electoral institutions, instruments, or processes.  

The Roman-Germanic, Roman-Canonic, or civil law families, have their origins in Roman Law (the Twelve Tables, Corpus Iuris Civile, and Corpus Iuris Canonici) and was decisively influenced by Canonic Law. Also, it was enriched with the contributions of commentators and “post-commentators”, and the work of the Latin-Germanic universities’ jurists. This way the so-called ius commune was formed. Later through codification processes, from which several civil, commerce, criminal or procedural codes were made, continued to the conformation of national laws arriving in the creation of the constitutions. In this legal tradition, the development of civil laws and the codification of legal dispositions based on justice and equity was favored. Countries in the Scandinavian region, Latin America, several African countries which had been European colonies, and several Continental European nations fundamentally belong to this legal family. 

The common law family arrived during the XI century in England. This legal tradition has had a wide diffusion in the majority of the English-speaking countries. It is characterized by the creation of legal dispositions coming from the judicial resolutions. In other words, the system follows the judicial precedent through which a particular case receives the same legal solution given to a previous and similar case. Therefore, opposite to the families that favor legislative creation, the law is a product of the judges’ labor. Basically, the United Kingdom, some African, American and Oceanic nations belonging to the Commonwealth legal system are found within this legal family. Most of these countries enforce English Law and recognize the monarch of the United Kingdom as Head of State. Another example is the United States.

Since they do not share a common juridical tradition, the religious systems do not constitute a legal family. The only adhesive feature is the religious or philosophical nature of its law, where law and religion are practically synonyms. In the different systems belonging to this tradition, the applicability of this mixture of conduct rules is restricted to certain subjects, such as in Hindu or Brahmanic law, observed in wide regions of India, or Hebrew law, kept by Orthodox Jewish communities spread through many countries.

However, there  are a significant number of countries where the great majority of citizens practice the Islamic religion and effectively share legal culture and tradition; therefore it is possible to attach them to the Islamic family.  

These notions are useful when considering the legal framework in a given country and in particular in subsequent sections when considering the role of the judiciary and judicial overview.