What is the basic principle that requires a court to follow the precedents set by higher courts?

The fundamental principle that requires courts to adhere to the precedents established by higher courts is known as stare decisis. This doctrine ensures that once a court has decided a particular legal issue, lower courts are obligated to follow that ruling in similar cases unless there is a compelling reason to deviate from it. This consistency fosters predictability and stability in the law, allowing individuals and entities to rely on established legal principles when making decisions.

Stare decisis promotes uniformity in the legal system by ensuring that similar cases are treated similarly, which is essential for maintaining fairness and justice. This principle also alleviates the burden on courts by reducing the need to re-litigate established legal questions, thus conserving judicial resources.

The other terms mentioned in the options have distinct meanings within legal discourse. Ratio decidendi refers to the legal reasoning or principle that forms the basis of a court's decision and may contribute to precedent but does not encapsulate the binding nature of precedent itself. Obiter dictum refers to remarks or observations made by a judge in a decision that are not central to the ruling and, while insightful, do not carry the weight of binding precedent. Res judicata deals with the principle of "claim preclusion," which prevents parties from re-litigating issues