There is a growing debate about whether an universal single law or country-specific regulations is superior. This essay will delve deeper into these two schools of thought and shed light on my advocacy for the latter.
On the one hand, an unified legal system promotes international trade across various nations. It is irrefutable that under different legislation among regions, commodities need to go through various approval procedures when transporting to another nation. By contrast, a common legal framework would eliminate unnecessary paperwork, which in turn lessens the time of customs clearance process. Therefore, business transactions would be simplified, thereby fostering overseas trade and strengthening international partner relationships.
On the other hand, I am convinced that countries should enact their own constitutional law as it reflects the unique social and historical contexts of the locals. To be more specific, some countries that have dangerously characteristic surroundings allow residents to possess their own weapons in order for self-defending, while others prohibit this type of firearms. For instance, the USA is a typical illustration of protecting individuals’ right to keep and bear arms, whereas Vietnam considers this to be an illegal activity. Moreover, there is no denying that every code of law is closely associated with cultural identity and moral standards. For example, while Thailand has been legalized same-sex marriage, this practice is not recognised to be legislative in Vietnam as it infringes the core value of culture.
In conclusion, while a single legal system encourages global trade, I wholeheartedly believe that governments should implement their own constitutional laws as they are closely related to societal norms and traditional custom.