A comparison of the self-defense institute would reveal stark differences between continental and Anglo-Saxon systems. Not only between those systems but also within them. Although this claim is not in line with Pradel's contention that 'Self-defense rests on the same grounds everywhere, in principle', we are of the opinion that other point of view is possible. Namely, continental law specifies self-defense and its grounds through statutory criminal law provisions. There are differences among national legislations with regards to the breadth of this defense, since a minority of statutes regards self-defense to be a general institute. Besides, there is no consensus with regard to importance and operation of this institute. In other countries, self-defense is a basis for exclusion of responsibility, in other of illegality and in the third group of countries of punishment. On the other hand, Anglo-Saxon criminal law, as a rule, does not contain statutory provisions on self-defense and it is invoked as a part of the Common Law. Moreover, self-defense is regarded to be a procedural institute in England. Although the US have enacted criminal law statutes, they have left self-defense out of it. Finally, Common Law is only now codified, and the process is dragging in conservative England. If and when it is regulated self-defense is treated similarly, but not identically, in continental and Anglo-Saxon criminal law.