A number of persons believe that it would be better to have single legislation for the whole world, however there are the others who support pluralism of legal systems. I agree with the second group of people who oppose unification in law.
On the one hand, supporters of global harmonization state that the unique legislation for society would make travelling simpler. Adventurers would not need to examine public prohibitions of country, which they are going to visit. Furthermore, the world’s trade would become easier, international companies’ expenses would decrease and the prices for goods would become cheaper.
On the other hand, opponents of harmonization provide two arguments against law unification. Firstly, it is impossible to create the unique legal system for all humanity, in light of the fact there are too many contradictories between nations. Secondly, the standardization may exterminate the culture, due to the fact that any law is a mirror of culture.
In my opinion, the pluralism better responds to the society’s interest, because purposes of reducing prohibitions and transactional costs for business can be achieved by international agreements. Governments may enter into treaties in which they may remove restrictions for travelers and harmonize law for companies. At the same time unification of jurisprudence may destroy the culture.
Summarizing, some people states that it must be the single legislation for the humanity, because it makes travelling easier and world trading cheaper. The others argue that legal unification is impassible and may demolish the culture. I believe that the second point of view is true, because international agreements may solve the problems with abroad trips and reducing firm’s expenses. However, the standardization would provide adverse effect on the society’s culture.