Abstract
“Adversarial” is a term used to describe the legal system in jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, all of which share the heritage of English common law. It refers to the control by the parties over the selection of legal theories and presentation of evidence. The hallmark of an adversarial system of justice is two competing sides, generally represented by lawyers, with a neutral judge serving essentially in the role of referee and legal decision‐maker. The relevant contrast with adversarial systems is with legal systems in which greater control is vested in state officials to control the presentation of facts and the legal contentions to be considered. These systems are rooted in Roman law of antiquity, as opposed to English common law, and are often referred to as civil law jurisdictions. This discussion will avoid the ambiguous term civil law, however, because it suggests the distinction between civil and criminal adjudication – that is, between cases in which a right asserted is personal to one of the parties (civil) and those in which a wrongdoer is prosecuted on behalf of the citizenry as a whole (criminal). Instead, legal systems founded in Roman law will be called Continental, to emphasize their development in the legal traditions of Continental Europe, particularly France and Germany.