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	MalaysiaReviewed	NamibiaReviewed	TongaReviewed
Legal family	Mixed common law and Islamic law	Mixed Roman-Dutch and English common law	Common law with customary law
System of government	Federal constitutional monarchy	Semi-presidential republic	Constitutional monarchy
Constitution	Federal Constitution of Malaysia	Constitution of the Republic of Namibia	Act of Constitution of Tonga
In force since	1957	1990	1875
Capital	Kuala Lumpur	Windhoek	Nuku'alofa
Official languages	Malay, English	English	Tongan, English
Currency	Malaysian ringgit (MYR)	Namibian dollar (NAD)	Tongan paʻanga (TOP)
Population	34,100,000	2,600,000	105,000
Division of powers	Federal, with 13 states and three federal territories. The Ninth Schedule sets out Federal, State and Concurrent Lists: land, Islamic law, Malay custom and local government are state matters, while trade, finance, defence and civil and criminal law are federal. Sabah and Sarawak hold additional competences — immigration, native customary land, and their own High Court — reflecting the terms on which they joined.	Unitary with 14 administrative regions and elected regional councils, which also constitute the National Council, the upper chamber. Traditional authorities exercise recognised functions over communal land and customary law.	Unitary. The Legislative Assembly legislates for the whole kingdom, and the island divisions of Tongatapu, Vava'u, Ha'apai, 'Eua and the Niuas are administrative districts headed by governors. Below that, town and district officers are elected under the Fakafekau'aki and District and Town Officers Act.
How law is made	Bills pass both houses; the Dewan Negara can delay but not block, and money bills originate in the Dewan Rakyat. Royal assent is required and, since a 1994 amendment, is deemed given after 30 days if withheld. Amendments affecting the rulers, the special position of the Malays, citizenship or the position of Sabah and Sarawak require additional consents beyond the two-thirds majority.	Bills pass the National Assembly through three readings, then go to the National Council for review. The Council may confirm, propose amendments, or object; the Assembly can override an objection by a two-thirds majority. The President then assents, and constitutional amendments require two-thirds of both chambers and may never diminish the rights chapter.	Bills pass three readings in the Legislative Assembly and require the King's assent, which is a real rather than purely formal step. Ordinary bills need a simple majority. Amendments to the Constitution require a majority in the Assembly at three separate readings and the consent of the King and Privy Council, and clause 79 forbids any amendment affecting the law of liberty, the succession to the throne or the titles and hereditary estates of the nobles.
Legal profession	A fused profession of advocates and solicitors, but regulated separately by territory: the Malaysian Bar under the Legal Profession Act 1976 for Peninsular Malaysia, the Sabah Law Society, and the Advocates Association of Sarawak. Admission requires a recognised law degree or the Certificate in Legal Practice, pupillage of nine months, and admission by the High Court. Syariah practitioners are separately admitted by state Syariah authorities and require Syariah law qualifications.	A fused profession under the Legal Practitioners Act: a single class of legal practitioner is admitted after a law degree and the Justice Training Centre's postgraduate course, and the Law Society of Namibia regulates practice.	Law practitioners are admitted by the Chief Justice and licensed under the Law Practitioners Act, with the Tonga Law Society as the professional body. Most qualify overseas or at the University of the South Pacific. A practitioner working on land must know the Land Act's allotment system rather than general property law, because the constitutional bar on selling land means conveyancing in the ordinary sense does not exist.

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.