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	VanuatuReviewed	LesothoReviewed	SamoaReviewed
Legal family	Mixed common, civil and customary law	Mixed Roman-Dutch and English common law	Common law with customary law
System of government	Unitary parliamentary republic	Parliamentary constitutional monarchy	Unitary parliamentary republic
Constitution	Constitution of the Republic of Vanuatu	Constitution of Lesotho	Constitution of the Independent State of Samoa
In force since	1980	1993	1962
Capital	Port Vila	Maseru	Apia
Official languages	Bislama, English, French	Sesotho, English	Samoan, English
Currency	Vanuatu vatu (VUV)	Lesotho loti (LSL)	Samoan tālā (WST)
Population	330,000	2,300,000	220,000
Division of powers	Unitary with decentralised administration. Six provinces — Malampa, Penama, Sanma, Shefa, Tafea and Torba — have councils under the Decentralisation Act with delegated functions. Custom land management is decentralised much further, to area-level Custom Land Tribunals and nakamal-based decision-making under the Custom Land Management Act 2013.	Unitary with ten districts, and a recognised hierarchy of chiefs exercising customary functions over land allocation and local dispute resolution. The Senate includes the twenty-two principal chiefs ex officio.	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	Bills are read three times in the single chamber and assented to by the President, who may refer a bill to the Supreme Court if he considers it inconsistent with the Constitution. Ordinary bills need a simple majority of members present, with a quorum of two-thirds. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority of all members; if the amendment touches the status of Bislama, English or French, land, or the republican form of the state, it must also be approved at a national referendum.	Bills pass three readings in the National Assembly, go to the Senate for review, and receive royal assent. The Senate can delay but not indefinitely block ordinary bills. Amendments to entrenched constitutional provisions require a two-thirds majority and, for the most protected clauses, a referendum.	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	A fused profession regulated by the Legal Practitioners Act: practitioners are admitted by the Chief Justice and licensed by the Law Council. The University of the South Pacific's law school is in Port Vila, so many Pacific lawyers train in Vanuatu. Practitioners may need to work in Bislama, English or French depending on the client and the court file, and the Public Solicitor is a constitutional office rather than a discretionary aid scheme.	A split profession in form — advocates and attorneys are separately admitted under the Legal Practitioners Act — though in practice many practitioners hold both admissions; the Law Society of Lesotho regulates the attorneys' branch.	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.