Comparison

Read two legal systems against each other

Because every portal follows the same fifteen-section outline, the comparison is genuinely like-for-like rather than a collage of whatever each government happens to publish.

Select up to six documented jurisdictions

Clear selection

Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czechia DR Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Eswatini Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Holy See (Vatican City)Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea North Macedonia Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of the Congo Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syria São Tomé and Príncipe Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Bahamas Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Comparison of selected legal systems
Attribute	LibyaIndexed	NauruReviewed	SamoaReviewed
Legal family	Civil law with Islamic law as a source	Common law with customary law	Common law with customary law
System of government	Provisional government with contested authority	Parliamentary republic	Unitary parliamentary republic
Constitution	Constitutional Declaration (interim)	Constitution of Nauru	Constitution of the Independent State of Samoa
In force since	2011	1968	1962
Capital	Tripoli	Yaren (seat of government)	Apia
Official languages	Arabic	Nauruan, English	Samoan, English
Currency	Libyan dinar (LYD)	Australian dollar (AUD)	Samoan tālā (WST)
Population	6,900,000	12,500	220,000
Division of powers	Nominally unitary with governorates and municipalities. In practice authority is divided between competing administrations and local armed actors, and municipal councils have in many places become the most functional layer of government.	Unitary and highly centralised — Nauru has no second tier of general government. The Nauru Island Council was abolished in 1999, so the state deals directly with citizens, though the 14 districts remain the basis for parliamentary constituencies and the twelve tribes retain social significance in land and title questions.	Unitary. Parliament legislates for the whole country. Below it, about 250 villages govern themselves through the village fono (council of matai) under the Village Fono Act 1990, which gives customary village authority statutory recognition — a genuine layer of local government rather than a delegation of central power.
How law is made	There is no single functioning legislative process. The House of Representatives passes laws that the High Council of State contests, and the rival administrations issue decrees within their areas of control. Whether a given instrument is law therefore depends on which authority is recognised, which is exactly why this profile is marked as requiring research rather than described as settled.	Bills receive three readings in the 19-member chamber and are assented to by the President. Ordinary legislation needs a simple majority, but the entrenched provisions of Part XI require a two-thirds majority and, for the most protected articles, approval at a referendum — the barrier that defeated the 2010 reform proposals.	Bills are read three times in the Legislative Assembly, usually with parliamentary committee scrutiny, and are then assented to by the O le Ao o le Malo. Ordinary bills need a simple majority. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority of all members at the third reading, and any amendment affecting customary land or matai titles is politically entrenched by the strength of the fa'a Samoa consensus even where the two-thirds threshold is met.
Legal profession	Advocates are admitted through the Libyan Bar Association, and the profession has continued to function, including in human-rights litigation, despite serious risks to practitioners. Judicial appointments run through the Supreme Judicial Council. Reliable current information on admission requirements and numbers is limited, which is reflected in the verification status of this entry.	A very small fused profession admitted by the Supreme Court under the Legal Practitioners Act 1973, supplemented by pleaders — non-lawyers licensed to appear in the District Court and before the Lands Committee, a practical necessity given the number of resident lawyers. Judicial officers are frequently appointed from Australia, New Zealand or elsewhere in the Pacific.	A fused profession under the Lawyers and Legal Practice Act 2014: lawyers are admitted by the Supreme Court and must hold a practising certificate from the Samoa Law Society. Most qualify at the University of the South Pacific or in New Zealand. Practice before the Land and Titles Court is different in character from ordinary litigation, because the issues are matai genealogy and customary entitlement rather than statutory or common-law rights.

A comparison table flattens nuance by design. Where a difference matters to a decision you are making, open both portals and read the section in full — the constitutional detail behind a one-line summary is often the part that governs the outcome.