Uniform Laws for the World

If all humans are equal, why are they governed by different laws?

To have group-based laws, as there are in nations today, is legalized discrimination and differential treatment. Variations in laws across nations necessarily entail legal inequality because some humans enjoy greater privileges or protections than others, merely on the basis of a group identity.

Nationalists and those who support cultural relativism argue that identity differences justify separate laws for each group. As different groups have different values and conceptions of social roles, they say that it is better for people in various groups to be governed by laws that are specific and appropriate to them. To them, a uniform system of laws across the world represents nothing but monstrous tyranny, trying to impose one standard on different groups.

Underlying this, however, is the assumption that group identity somehow makes people different and even unequal. Consider, for example, the variation in the legal marriage age across countries. Is there any biological difference between national groups that makes people suitable for marriage at different ages? A division that exists only in the imagination, and that is artificially created, cannot in itself render people different.

If all humans are to be considered equal before the law, then they cannot be judged or governed by differing standards. There must be absolute standards for all humanity upon which the laws governing it should be based, in line with a universal concept of justice. What is wrong is wrong for all, and what is right is right for all. So a practice like consuming alcohol has to be considered the same way across the world, not like in today’s world where it is completely acceptable for some groups while even punishable by death for others.

Different laws to accommodate group subjectivity are unjustified because there exists no such thing as group subjectivity. Subjectivity, if there is any at all, is at the individual level, because individuals truly differ in so many regards. An identity group by aggregating individuals cancels out most of these differences, leaving nothing to justify the subjectivity they demand. Even at the individual level the law does not entertain subjectivity in most cases; for example, the fact that people mature at different ages does not stop the law from specifying an age of adulthood. Why then should group claims be entertained? All humans should be subject to one standard of justice.

Uniform laws will help to bring to justice those who at present are able to take advantage of differing legal systems. Law-breaking fugitives who flee abroad and hide behind national boundaries to evade punishment will no longer enjoy impunity when the hand of justice will have a global reach. So will smugglers, human traffickers, terrorist gangs—when the walls of national sovereignty are broken down, they will all be countered with globally coordinated action.

On the other hand, under global laws individuals will have more freedom to choose for themselves. Group-based legal systems tend to include not just universal and basic principles of justice but also group-specific norms, which they force people to comply with. But at the world level, we would have a system that applies universally across groups without imposing the will of one on another. Such a system would then consist only of the universal principles that apply to everyone, without imposing any group norms on people. Individuals are left with a choice—they can decide to follow the group norms, or to not and still enjoy legal protection.

Every human has the right, as part of the right to justice, to be governed by equal and uniform laws, and not by the whims of their identity group. In a world where national identities are the units of political power and the status of people is decided by identity, this right cannot be realized. A united world is needed to bring about universal standards of law and justice, so that everyone may have equal status as a human being.