Anonymous question

Oh. Usually, however, continental law is contrasted with Anglo-Saxon law.

In the first case, the judge determines the decision for each specific issue; he may base it on precedents as well as various codes, but he is also entitled to establish his own precedent. The only thing a judge is strongly advised not to neglect is general legal principles, many of which were discovered precisely within the framework of Roman law.
As for the second case, the judge’s role is reduced to determining which article of a particular code describes the situation under consideration, and then making a decision according to that article.

Effectively, the ideal judge in continental law is a computer expert system. Only in cases where legislative uncertainty is found does the judge have to turn to precedents (so-called law enforcement practice) or even establish a precedent himself.

It is easy to see that continental law is permeated with a spirit of distrust toward the judge and his sense of justice, provoking cynicism and the thoughtless stamping out of decisions. Of course, all other things being equal, I would prefer precedent law, especially in complex matters.

However, one of the most important features of Ancapistan is the complete decentralization of law. If the parties recognize the jurisdiction of the court over them, it is completely irrelevant whether the court judges by codes, precedents, Sharia, or a table of random numbers—the decisions of such a court must be obeyed. If even one party does not recognize the jurisdiction of the court over them, then it is no longer a court, but some legally null procedure.