Be warned, this article has only a passing understanding of "system[s] of common law". The odd phraseology I put down to translation, but some of the specific statements are just wrong. I would say this is a wikipedia-level understanding of how systems of legal authority work.
For instance, in common law countries (ie those taking their traditions from the Brits) judges are not in fact obligated to follow rules of precedent. That's the sort of thing that a textbook might say, but the reality is that judges regularly bypass or ignore previous rulings on similar matters. Similarly, in Civil law jurisdictions (those that take traditions from the French) judges regularly rely on past rulings by respected judges. The process may not be formalized, but to say that judges no not regard previous decisions on similar matters is disingenuous. They write. They read each other;s work. They learn and share in much the same way as common law jurisdictions.
Speaking as someone working in common law jurisdictions, I'd say that the primary motivation for a judge to follow a previous ruling by a higher court is not some rule of precedent. Imho they are motivated by the likelihood of their ruling being turned on appeal. That gives them much more room in which to act. That is judicial discretion. That power is why we must respect judges and why they in turn must work to deserve our respect.
For instance, in common law countries (ie those taking their traditions from the Brits) judges are not in fact obligated to follow rules of precedent. That's the sort of thing that a textbook might say, but the reality is that judges regularly bypass or ignore previous rulings on similar matters. Similarly, in Civil law jurisdictions (those that take traditions from the French) judges regularly rely on past rulings by respected judges. The process may not be formalized, but to say that judges no not regard previous decisions on similar matters is disingenuous. They write. They read each other;s work. They learn and share in much the same way as common law jurisdictions.
Speaking as someone working in common law jurisdictions, I'd say that the primary motivation for a judge to follow a previous ruling by a higher court is not some rule of precedent. Imho they are motivated by the likelihood of their ruling being turned on appeal. That gives them much more room in which to act. That is judicial discretion. That power is why we must respect judges and why they in turn must work to deserve our respect.