A globally joint legal system is deemed ideal by some people, whereas others favor the current difference in law establishment among nations. This essay aims to give insight into both perspectives and argues for the latter.
On one level, advocates of only one law regime may hold the belief that it allows superior legal actions to a worldwide extent. In this scenario, the governments of every country on the planet would have to unite and join hands to create and regulate one set of laws that would be meant to work for each of the nations. This arguably leads to an unprecedented level of intricacy and effectiveness in the making and supervision of laws and rules. As a result, crimes might be greatly more under control, and social assets, including global trade, worldwide travel, and international collaborations would be more well-developed due to the reduction of legal barriers among countries.
Nonetheless, the truth is that different lands around the world are in very different specific situations and may hardly benefit from the so-called single legal system. These differences include but are not limited to each nation’s culture, level of education, economy, or relationship with others. Considering these factors, it should be nearly impossible to craft one legal system that works for all countries on such a diverse planet. Therefore, I would argue that each nation is to establish its own set of laws, which ought to suit its people’s specific needs, its position in the world, as well as its plan for the future.
In conclusion, while there can be certain good points of a sole international list of laws and rules, they barely matter when compared to the discernible importance of specific regulations for each country.