Editing English law (section)

===Overseas influences===
[[File:The-queens-dominions.jpg|right|thumb|upright=1.45|A map of the British Empire under [[Queen Victoria]] at the end of the nineteenth century. "Dominions" refers to all territories belonging to [[the Crown]].]]

====Reciprocity====
England exported its common law and statute law to most parts of the [[British Empire]]. Many aspects of that system have survived after Independence from British rule, and the influences are often reciprocal. "English law" prior to the American Revolutionary Wars (American War of Independence) is still an influence on [[Law of the United States|American law]], and provides the basis for many American legal traditions and principles.

After independence, English common law still exerted influence over American common law – for example, ''[[Byrne v Boadle]]'' (1863), which first applied the ''[[res ipsa loquitur]]'' doctrine. Jurisdictions that have kept to the common law may incorporate modern legal developments from England, and English decisions are usually persuasive in such jurisdictions.

In the United States, each state has its own supreme court with final appellate jurisdiction, resulting in the development of state common law. The US Supreme Court has the final say over federal matters. By contrast, in Australia, one national common law exists.<ref>Liam Boyle, ''[http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=blr An Australian August Corpus: Why There is Only One Common Law in Australia]'',  Bond Law Review, Volume 27, 2015</ref>

====Courts of final appeal====
After Britain's colonial period, jurisdictions that had inherited and adopted England's common law{{efn|In this context, "common law" has been described as a body of judge-made law enforced and developed by the courts which ''includes'' equity and admiralty law, and which has always been "unintelligible without reference to the statute".<ref>Liam Boyle: ''An Australian August Corpus: Why There is Only One Common Law in Australia'',  Bond Law Review, Volume 27, 2015. p.29 II ''[http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=blr Some Preliminary Propositions]''</ref>}} developed their courts of final appeal in differing ways: jurisdictions still under the British crown are subject to the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] in London.{{efn|The US, Britain's first colony to be "lost", has a central federal Supreme Court as well as a "supreme court" in each state.}} For a long period, the British [[Dominion]]s used London's Privy Council as their final appeal court, although one by one they eventually established their local [[supreme court]]. New Zealand was the last Dominion to abandon the Privy Council, setting up its own [[Supreme Court of New Zealand|Supreme Court]] in 2004.{{efn|Any decisions of the Privy Council made before the change of jurisdiction remain binding legal precedent.}} 

Even after independence, many former British colonies in the [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] continued to use the Privy Council, as it offered a readily available high-grade service. In particular, several Caribbean Island nations found the Privy Council advantageous.

====International law and commerce====
Britain is a [[Dualism (law)|dualist]] in its relationship with international law, so international treaties must be formally ratified by Parliament and incorporated into statute before such [[supranationalism|supranational]] laws become binding in the UK.{{efn|Mere agreement to the final text of a treaty is only the first stage, hence "dualist". For instance, Britain has yet to ratify the terms of the [[Arrest Convention 1999]], so the earlier 1952 treaty is still in place.}}{{efn|Ratification after agreement of a final text often takes decades. In the case of the [[Maritime Labour Convention]] of 2006, even though the [[European Union|EU]] instructed member states to adopt the MLC, this "fast-tracked" treaty still did not come into force until 2013.}}{{efn|For example, the [[European Convention on Human Rights|European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms]] was signed in 1950 and Britain allowed individuals to directly petition the [[European Commission on Human Rights]] from 1966. Now s6(1) [[Human Rights Act 1998]] (HRA) makes it unlawful "... for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right", where a "public authority" is any person or body which exercises a public function, expressly including the courts but expressly excluding Parliament.}}{{efn|Although the European Convention has begun to be applied to the acts of non-state agents, the Human Rights Act (HRA) does not make the convention specifically applicable between private parties. Courts have taken the convention into account in interpreting the common law. They also must take the convention into account in interpreting Acts of Parliament, but must ultimately follow the terms of the Act even if inconsistent with the convention (s3 HRA).}}

Britain has long been a major trading nation, exerting a strong influence on the law of [[maritime law|shipping]] and [[international trade law|maritime trade]].  The English law of [[Marine salvage|salvage]],<ref>[[International Convention on Salvage|1989 Salvage Convention]]</ref> [[collisions]],<ref>[[International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea|COLREGS]]</ref> ship arrest,<ref>[[1952 Arrest Convention]]</ref> and [[Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea|carriage of goods by sea]]<ref>The [[Hague-Visby Rules]]</ref> are subject to international conventions which Britain played a leading role in drafting. Many of  these conventions incorporate principles derived from English common law{{efn|Such as the rule on [[Deviation (law)|deviation]]}} and documentary procedures.{{efn|Such as the [[Lloyd's Open Form]]}}