The judiciary is a branch of government, consisting of justices, judges and magsitrates[?] among other types of adjudicators. The primary function of the judiciary is to adjudicate legal disputes. The judiciary is also responsible for interpreting the law, but while in some legal systems this is a fundamental principle (e.g. common law jurisdictions), in others the primary responsibility for interpreting the law belongs not to the judiciary but to the legislature — traditionally, civil law and socialist law jurisdictions — although even in them, the judiciary inevitably must play some interpretive role, since interpretation of the law is an inseparable part of adjudicating legal disputes. This difference can be seen by comparing the United States and China — in the United States, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretation of the law; in China, the final authority on the interpretation of the law is the National People's Congress.
The idea found in civil law and socialist law that the judiciary doesn't interpret the law has its origins in both in Roman law times. It is said that Justinian had the Corpus Juris Civilis compliled and all other decisions by jurists burned to create certainly in the law. Again in the 19th century French some legal scholars at the time of the development of the Code Napoleon advocated the same kind of approach — it was believed that since the law was being written down precisely, it should not need interpretation; and if it did need interpretation, it could be referred to those who wrote the code. Napoleon, who was an advocate of this approach felt that the task of interpreting the law should be left with the elected legislature, not with unelected judges. However, in practice, this idea was found difficult and judges in France and other countries that Napoleon had conquered or where there was a reception of the Civil Code approach judges once again took on an important role like their English counterparts. At present in civil law jurisdictions in practice judges interpret the law to about the same extent as in common law jurisdictions – though it may be acknowledged in theory in a different manner than in the common law tradition which actually saw judges making the law. In civil law jurisdictions the role of interpretation has taken a much more conservative approach and when the law fails to deal with a situation, doctrinal writers and not judges call for legislative reform, though these legal scholars sometimes influence judicial decision making. Civil law judges also refer to the interpretation of codal provisions and they look for an underlying rationale not only in the particular text, but its relationship to the whole structure of the code as an organizing structure that reflects order in a civil society.
Socialist law adopted the position of civil law, but added to it a new line of thought derived from Communism — the interpretation of the law is ultimately political, and should serve the purposes of Communism, and hence should not be left to a non-political organ (even though in practice, the judiciary was not much of a non-political organ).
Common misspelling and questions (FAQ)
udicial-branch jdicial-branch juicial-branch judcial-branch judiial-branch judical-branch judicil-branch judicia-branch judicialbranch judicial-ranch judicial-banch judicial-brnch judicial-brach judicial-branh judicial-branc ujdicial-branch jduicial-branch juidcial-branch judciial-branch judiical-branch judicail-branch judicila-branch judicia-lbranch judicialb-ranch judicial-rbanch judicial-barnch judicial-brnach judicial-bracnh judicial-branhc judicial-branc jjudicial-branch juudicial-branch juddicial-branch judiicial-branch judiccial-branch judiciial-branch judiciaal-branch judiciall-branch judicial--branch judicial-bbranch judicial-brranch judicial-braanch judicial-brannch judicial-brancch judicial-branchh uudicial-branch hudicial-branch nudicial-branch iudicial-branch mudicial-branch iudicial-branch kudicial-branch mudicial-branch j7dicial-branch jydicial-branch jhdicial-branch j8dicial-branch jjdicial-branch j8dicial-branch jidicial-branch jjdicial-branch jueicial-branch jusicial-branch juxicial-branch juricial-branch jucicial-branch juricial-branch juficial-branch jucicial-branch jud8cial-branch juducial-branch judjcial-branch jud9cial-branch judkcial-branch jud9cial-branch judocial-branch judkcial-branch judidial-branch judixial-branch judifial-branch judifial-branch judivial-branch judic8al-branch judicual-branch judicjal-branch judic9al-branch judickal-branch judic9al-branch judicoal-branch judickal-branch judiciql-branch judiciwl-branch judicizl-branch judiciwl-branch judicisl-branch judicizl-branch judiciao-branch judiciak-branch judicia,-branch judiciap-branch judicia.-branch judiciap-branch judicia;-branch judicia.-branch judicial0branch judicialpbranch judicial[branch judicial-granch judicial-vranch judicial-hranch judicial-hranch judicial-nranch judicial-b4anch judicial-beanch judicial-bdanch judicial-b5anch judicial-bfanch judicial-b5anch judicial-btanch judicial-bfanch judicial-brqnch judicial-brwnch judicial-brznch judicial-brwnch judicial-brsnch judicial-brznch judicial-brahch judicial-brabch judicial-brajch judicial-brajch judicial-bramch judicial-brandh judicial-branxh judicial-branfh judicial-branfh judicial-branvh judicial-brancy judicial-brancg judicial-brancb judicial-brancu judicial-brancn judicial-brancu judicial-brancj judicial-brancn judycial-branch judicial-branchsThank that you are coming so soon. Saturday, July 2nd, in the morning, office. You might stay with me, but I am afraid you would not be this we shall settle at once at the office. There is a good Lord, how glad I am. Not another word by letter! Au revoir. Your RICHARD WAGNER Could you let me know by telegram exactly when you are.