Any judiciary system based on British Common Law, including American, British (no surprise), Indian, French (surprise), in fact most European democratic nations, and elsewhere for the matter is flawed.
They are based on the premise that there are judges who decide, there are a certain other group of people who help the judge decide, and there are two opposing factions other than the people who are being judged upon who argue their viewpoints on why they are right in their cause. None of whom actually do really well what they are supposed to do, bar some minor cases. That’s due to the way the governments behave which in fact is based upon constituent modules like fiscal policy, economic structure etc.
The system is flawed, not because of the layout of it, but because there is no enforcement on how each party should behave according to a certain code of conduct that benefits the entirety of the people they are a part of. In fact, there is no code of conduct that adheres strictly to what their relevant constitutions describe. Enforcement of that is simply non-existant. It can’t be enforced. The rules of enforcement themselves are flaky because of the lack of code of conduct.
The way most nations and governments are formed, pieces are grafted together as needs surface themselves. Need a fiscal policy, slap on market economy. Need a form of government, slap on on democracy or some form of devolved socialism. Need a judiciary system, slap on British common law, or fascism. Who cares. Just slap on something that a group thinks is best and something that’s already been tried before.
A nation should base itself on the strength of it’s people. There’s no one form of government for all nations. The pillar of the policy of the government should be the judiciary system. Not one that everyone’s tried and hasn’t worked.
When thinking of a nation that stands the test of time and the will of the people, you can’t piece-meal together a system, ad-hoc, from existing philosphies. As much as possible, a system that works as a whole should be envisioned. Obviously that system has to include, by design, a process to rethink the workings of the entire nation, all over again, when it is thought it’s needed.
We need new thinking there. Where are you when we need you, Harvard Law?