>For instance, if you have a copyright law you might write it to apply to any "creative work" but leave that relatively undefined and left up to interpretation by a reasonable person (i.e. a judge). You don't want movies left unprotected, because the law was unambiguously written to only apply to writings.
Maybe in the anglo-saxon law system, this is true. In countries with napoleonic or roman law system judge's role is generally considered to be to apply the law as it is written, with the assumption that the law in most cases is sufficiently clear in itself.
> In countries with napoleonic or roman law system judge's role is generally considered to be to apply the law as it is written, with the assumption that the law in most cases is sufficiently clear in itself.
I was under the impression that those Napoleonic/Roman law judges still have to interpret the law's meaning and apply it in ambiguous situations, but the difference is that their interpretations aren't binding on other judges like in the Anglo-Saxon system.
The difference is more when it comes to precedence, which allows judges in Anglo-Saxon countries essentially to create law.
Judges in France still need to interpret laws according to what they intended to do. There's then a majority and minority opinion(s) on how that law is intepreted, and these things are set by discourse and precedence, with judges being free to decide.
Maybe in the anglo-saxon law system, this is true. In countries with napoleonic or roman law system judge's role is generally considered to be to apply the law as it is written, with the assumption that the law in most cases is sufficiently clear in itself.