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	NauruReviewed	NamibiaReviewed	MicronesiaReviewed
Legal family	Common law with customary law	Mixed Roman-Dutch and English common law	Mixed common law with customary law
System of government	Parliamentary republic	Semi-presidential republic	Federal republic in free association with the United States
Constitution	Constitution of Nauru	Constitution of the Republic of Namibia	Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia
In force since	1968	1990	1979
Capital	Yaren (seat of government)	Windhoek	Palikir
Official languages	Nauruan, English	English	English, Chuukese, Pohnpeian, Yapese, Kosraean
Currency	Australian dollar (AUD)	Namibian dollar (NAD)	United States dollar (USD)
Population	12,500	2,600,000	115,000
Division of powers	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 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.	Genuine federalism. The national government holds foreign affairs, defence, immigration, currency and interstate commerce; everything else, including land tenure, is state or local. Each state has its own constitution and supreme court, and Yap's constitution creates Councils of Pilung and Tamol — traditional leaders' councils with power to disapprove state legislation affecting tradition and custom.
How law is made	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 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 Congress and are signed by the President, who has a veto that Congress may override. Because the four at-large senators serve longer terms and are the pool from which the President is drawn, national politics is structured around balancing the states rather than around parties — there are no formal political parties. Constitutional amendments may be proposed by Congress, by a convention, or by popular initiative, and require ratification by three-quarters of the voters in three of the four states.
Legal profession	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 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.	Admission is to the FSM Supreme Court, with rules that recognise foreign qualifications, so many practitioners trained in the United States. A distinctive feature is the trial counselor: a non-lawyer licensed to appear in certain courts after examination, which is how most representation is delivered outside the main centres. Practitioners must often hold admission both nationally and in the relevant state.

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.