From the moment humans first roamed the earth, they’ve sought to impose order on chaos—whether through divine intervention and justice, the iron fists of kings, or the people's collective will. Legal systems and their corresponding laws have evolved, similar to languages and species, due to practical needs, historical events, or cultural shifts, and not because someone is steering the process toward an ideal legal system. The earliest recorded attempt at codifying rules came from the Sumerians, with the Code of Ur-Nammu—proof that even 4,000 years ago, humanity needed to put “don’t kill people” and “don’t steal oxen” into writing. But these weren’t just arbitrary rules; they reflected the chaos and peculiarities of ancient life. From these ancient codes, which were shaped as much by gods as by the whims of kings, law took bizarre twists and turns, proving that humans had a knack for nitpicking legal loopholes even back in ancient times.
TVGuide // A still from the show “Better Call Saul”
As societies grew complex, so did their laws. Initially, justice was guaranteed by kings and rulers claiming to rule under divine guidance. Over time, justice shifted its focus to land and loyalty. Breaking the law meant more than just violating moral codes; it was about destabilising the delicate balance of power between lords and vassals. Then came the age of constitutions and declarations, inspired by enlightenment ideals like liberty, equality, and the rule of law. Modern legal systems are the product of centuries of experimentation and adjustment.
Sacred Beginnings
In early human societies, during the time of nomadic tribes and early agrarian communities, Shamans played a significant role. They were believed to have the power to communicate directly with divine beings in an altered state of consciousness. As communities developed and required more organisation, the leader started taking on more political roles, eventually leading to a fascinating concept — the Gods-King system. During these civilisations, kings were considered divine beings who had the power to mediate between the heavenly realm and the mortal world. This is marked in history by the rise of powerful rulers who sought to legitimise their rule through divine endorsement, solidifying the power dynamics and ensuring loyalty from civilians. [1]
These codes, carefully inscribed in stone or preserved in oral traditions are the earliest and most successful attempts at codifying law. The influence of these laws spread way beyond their time, playing a huge role in the empires that followed. For example, their “innocent until proven guilty” concept has seeped and been preserved through many phases of history and remains relevant to the modern world.
Babylon
The Code of Hammurabi is historically known to be one of the only complete written legal codes and was proclaimed by the sixth king of Babylon, Hammurabi who reigned from 1792 to 1750 B.C.E [2]. The laws address business contracts, proper prices for goods, family and criminal law. Every crime inscribed on the stele is followed by the punishment to be inflicted. No one could claim they were ignorant of the law as the over seven-foot-tall stele was erected publicly. These laws were written as clear rules to ensure even the powerful (like kings or rulers) had to follow certain standards. For instance, if you cut someone's hand off, you would have yours cut off, too. The king enforced his laws by holding everyone accountable equally, without regard for status or income. Every law had a clear punishment attached to it, and penalties were carried out consistently.
Hammurabi’s authority was closely tied to divine endorsement. The king often portrayed himself as the chosen representative of the gods. This connection was endorsed at the top of the statue, where the sun god Shamash is engraved handing the laws to Hammurabi, making it clear that these are the laws of a god and not a mere mortal’s will.
Hammurabi was very clever in choosing a god to convey these laws. He could have easily chosen Marduk, the patron of his capital city, Babylon, or Enki, the god of wisdom. But he chose Shamash, knowing this would compel the citizens to place greater importance on the laws. The sun god symbolised the illumination of the path to righteousness and justice.
Egypt
Since the dawn of time, Egyptians have considered Ra to be the supreme deity, the very essence of creation and light. His daughter, Maat, wasn't just a divine intervention to ancient Egyptians; she was a part of their day-to-day lives, influencing laws, social norms, and government decisions. The concept of Maat represented the ethical and moral principles that all Egyptian citizens were expected to follow throughout their daily lives. These principles guided laws that orally addressed matters such as theft, property disputes, contracts, and social obligations. Laws required fair treatment of all citizens, prohibited theft and dishonesty, and promoted equitable sharing of resources like water for irrigation. Inheritance laws ensured that wealth was distributed among family members in a manner that upheld Maat's principle of fairness.
These laws were effective because they were considered divine. Many pharaohs sought to demonstrate that they were blessed by Maat and embodied everything she represented. To be perceived as good leaders, they often referred to themselves as the “Lords of Maat,” signifying that truth and justice were at the core of their leadership.
Then, there was the most important element — fear. Maat did not just maintain order in the mortal world and the judge in the afterlife. Upon death, the mummification included leaving the heart within the body so it could be judged in the afterlife by Maat. Maat would weigh each person's heart against her signature ostrich feather. If the heart weighed the same as or less than the feather, the individual was deemed just and worthy of continuing into the Duat, the everlasting afterlife. However, if the scales showed that the heart was heavier than the feather, it revealed that the person had not been a follower of Maat during their life. The consequence of this was severe — the deceased would be denied an afterlife, and their heart would be consumed by a demon or devoured entirely by Ammut, the crocodile-headed creature. [3]. Ancient Egyptians did not differentiate between human and divine justice; instead, they believed that the law stood above all individuals and played a crucial role in maintaining order and harmony within their civilisation. The belief in Maat ensured that chaotic forces were kept in check and allowed society to function smoothly. The king, considered a god, held significant responsibility for upholding Maat and transforming this belief into a practical reality on Earth. The creation and enforcement of laws were seen as a way to manifest the principles of Maat within the legal system.
Bluntly put, the Gods-King system served as simple but powerful propaganda. One of the best examples of this would be the Cyrus Cylinder, a remarkable artefact that portrays Cyrus the Great as the chosen one of Marduk, while only poorly concealing the intentions of casting Nabonidus, the last ruler of Neo-Babylon, in a negative light.
Crumbling Crowns
As everything in an evolving world does, the Gods-King system also ended, attributed to a few factors. The concentration of power in the hands of a single ruler proved to be unsustainable over time, as monarchs became isolated from their people and failed to adapt to the changing conditions. This was especially true in regions experiencing internal strife, such as famines, rebellions, or dynastic struggles, which eroded the power of these rulers. One thing was clear, the kings could no longer hide behind the divine aspect to provide legitimacy and shield them from the practical challenges of governance. As corruption and inefficiency became more widespread within the royal court, the elite class began to question the monarch's ability to maintain control and protect their interests.
Externally, invasions and the threat of foreign powers often sought to exploit the weakness of the central authority, eventually leading to its breakdown. The king could no longer offer defence, prompting local leaders and regional powers to step in and assume control. This decentralisation often began as a way for local rulers to maintain stability in the face of central collapse, but it eventually led to the emergence of feudal systems where power was shared or even entirely vested in the hands of local elites.
Tibetan Buddhism
The Dalai Lama was seen as the incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassion, giving him immense influence over the people. Over time, the authority of the central Dalai Lama weakened, giving way to a more decentralised system that resembled feudalism. In this decentralised system, the laws that governed Tibetan society were heavily influenced by Buddhist principles, but their application became more localised and varied. The Buddhist concept of karma played a major role in shaping the legal framework, as it provided a moral basis for many of the laws, with the idea that actions that caused harm or suffering would lead to negative consequences, both in this life and in future lives.
The concepts of non-violence (ahimsa) and compassion, the core values of Buddhism, shaped laws regarding punishment and treatment of others. These laws emphasised rehabilitation and moral correction rather than retribution, due to the principle of avoiding harm to living beings. However, this system had its drawbacks — individuals such as butchers and blacksmiths were often regarded as “polluted” in Tibetan society due to their involvement in activities associated with violence or harm. Over time, this perception led to their being considered of lower social status. Despite this stigma, they continued to fully participate in the religious, cultural, and social life of Tibetan society, albeit with their roles defined by these societal prejudices.
Local rulers and monasteries began to enforce these laws, interpreting Buddhist teachings through their lens and applying them to their subjects. Disputes such as inheritance, land disputes, and even criminal cases were resolved through religious councils or tribunal systems that combined legal and spiritual matters. The strong connection between religion and politics made the Tibetan feudal system unique, creating a complex and rigid social structure, but one that didn’t have clear, separate classes. It was more of a feeling that people experienced in everyday life, with a strong sense of hierarchy present in both religious and secular aspects, making it a concept difficult for outsiders to grasp [4].
French Revolution
Unlike the medieval feudal system, 18th-century seigneurialism degenerated into a transactional relationship between lords (seigneurs) and peasant farmers. The remnants of feudalism lingered, frustrating the aspirations of the increasingly prosperous bourgeoisie—merchants, manufacturers, and professionals—who were excluded from political power despite their growing economic influence. For the peasants, many of whom now owned land and enjoyed improved living standards, the persistence of feudal dues and obligations felt like an outdated burden. This system failed to address the growing inequities and discontent among the population.
With no other options, the monarchy attempted to raise funds by taxing the previously exempt nobility. It sought support from the middle class and peasants, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The middle class wanted political power to match their growing economic influence, while peasants demanded freedom from feudal constraints.
With no divine shield for the monarchy to hide behind, revolution became inevitable. The French Revolution dismantled the remnants of feudalism, paving the way for the creation of the Constitution of 1791. This landmark document sought to replace the old order with a system grounded in Enlightenment principles. The monarchy was stripped of its authority, with its powers transferred to the newly established Legislative Assembly.
This assembly, indirectly elected by “active” citizens who paid minimal taxes, marked a shift towards democratic governance. About two-thirds of adult men were granted voting rights to elect representatives and certain local officials. Although the constitution lasted less than a year, it was a pivotal step in transitioning from the oppressive feudal order to a system of governance based on the rule of law and individual rights [5].
Source: InspiredPencil
This evolution from a God-king system to feudalism, and ultimately to constitutional governance, reflects a broader shift in societal expectations. Laws that had once served to maintain rigid hierarchies and concentrated power were no longer sufficient. The people demanded systems that respected their rights, provided representation, and ensured equality under the law—principles that became the foundation of modern democracies.
Breaking Traditions
The defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I led to a seismic shift in the region's political and cultural landscape. Western Europe emerged as the global powerhouse and their success became the yardstick for progress. Western governance, law, and societal norms were seen as superior models to emulate. For Turkey, the failure of the Ottoman Empire to adapt and prevent its disintegration during the war cemented the belief that its Islamic foundations were part of the problem, incapable of standing up to modern, industrialised powers. The Ottoman defeat wasn’t just military; it was ideological.
The Tanzimat reforms of the Ottoman Empire had aimed to modernise by tweaking aspects of sharia law but it was too little and too late. They’d tinkered with the edges without addressing the core, creating tension between traditionalists who felt betrayed and modernists who thought the empire wasn’t moving fast enough.
The leaders of the new Turkish Republic, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, wanted to shake off this legacy of failure and humiliation. They wanted to assert the country’s independence in the face of Western dominance. Ironically, this meant adopting Western systems to demonstrate that Turkey could thrive as a modern, equal partner in the global community rather than as a colonial remnant of the Ottoman Empire.
Atatürk replaced Islamic law with secular civil codes inspired by the Swiss legal system. Apostasy laws weren’t reinterpreted; they were abolished altogether. Muslims were free to convert to Christianity, just as Christians could embrace Islam. This shift towards secularism wasn’t limited to legal reforms—it reshaped society too. The adoption of a Latin-based alphabet, the prohibition of traditional dress codes, and the encouragement of Western clothing all symbolised a conscious move away from the Ottoman-Islamic legacy [6].
However, these state-driven reforms had significant consequences. By removing Sharia law and diminishing the Ulama's authority, the Turkish Republic eliminated the traditional limits on government power. This paved the way for an overly centralised state—a “Leviathan” that could mould society to fit its vision. While these changes modernised Turkey, they suppressed alternative perspectives and gave rise to a powerful, unchecked government.
Sati, Sedition, and Social Reform
Unlike Turkey’s nationalist-driven modernisation, colonised nations, such as India’s legal system developed under the shadow of colonial rule, which left behind codified laws modelled on British legal principles. The history of colonial law in British India is a complex narrative that spans over two centuries, beginning with the establishment of the British East India Company establishing its presence in India as a trading entity. Driven by insatiable desire, these white colonisers sought to claim control over the land by introducing new treaties, laws and military force.
The initial legal framework combined British common law and existing Indian legal traditions. The Regulating Act of 1773 marked the beginning of formal legal administration, establishing the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Calcutta [7]. However, the codification of laws often clashed with traditional practices and customs. For example, the Indian Penal Code criminalised practices such as sati (the self-immolation of widows), which were deeply rooted in certain communities. While some viewed these reforms as progressive, others saw them as an imposition of foreign values.
The British colonial legal system in India claimed to bring universal law and order, but in reality, their reforms were carefully modelled to sustain their rule. A famous example is section 142A IPC, used against Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, and Jawaharlal Nehru, who were charged for speaking out against British colonial rule. Additionally, the CrPC was instrumental in authorising mass arrests, particularly with detention laws that allowed the government to arrest and detain individuals without trial, targeting political activists. Furthermore, the caste system was not dismantled but institutionalised further, while certain communities were named “criminal tribes”, justifying invasive policing and further marginalisation [8]. While the colonisers paraded around their ideas of “equality under the law,” the reality was clear: the law was used to reinforce divisions, maintain hierarchies, and ensure their dominance.
After India gained independence in 1947, the legal system had to undergo significant changes to reflect the country’s democratic values. The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, marked the start of this transformation, with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar playing a key role as its principal architect, establishing a framework of fundamental rights and directives for social justice. The judiciary became independent, using judicial review to uphold the Constitution and safeguard individual freedoms. Major criminal law reforms followed, with colonial-era laws like sedition (Section 124A of the IPC) undergoing reconsideration and revision [9].
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru pushed through land reforms such as the Zamindari Abolition Act to redistribute land. The Hindu Code Bills of the 1950s, driven by Ambedkar and Nehru, reformed personal laws, granting women more rights in matters like marriage and inheritance. Labour laws were codified through the Factories Act (1948) and the Minimum Wages Act (1948), improving working conditions. The Dowry Prohibition Act (1961) sought to address social practices like dowry. India’s legal system evolved from colonial controls to a modern framework aimed at justice, equality, and social welfare.
Law for All
Most of the legal systems around the world, including in India, after gaining independence, retained these colonial-era laws that tended to suppress marginalised communities. As societies evolved and human rights commanded greater recognition, laws began to be re-examined due to civilians stepping out and protesting for basic human rights, inclusivity and equality. Laws like the Civil Rights Act (1964) in the US [10], and the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) in Australia [11] banned discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. Women’s rights have been significantly enhanced through laws like the Equal Pay Act (1963) in the US [12], which sought to eliminate gender-based wage discrimination, and the Maternity Benefits Act in India, providing paid leave for working women. Disability rights have seen progress through laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), ensuring equal opportunity and access to public spaces, while the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) in the UK [13] pushed for inclusive policies. Legal systems have also advanced in areas like environmental protection, with the Paris Agreement of 2015 [14] establishing a global framework to combat climate change. Consumer rights were further enhanced through legislation, such as India's Consumer Protection Act, enacted in 1986[15] to protect people against unfair business practices.
Cybersecurity
With the ever-evolving, fast-paced legal systems came the need for advanced laws focusing on outer space, cybersecurity and privacy protection. China has created one of the most sophisticated and far-reaching cybersecurity legal frameworks, designed to protect its digital infrastructure, safeguard national security, and assert its control over cyberspace. It is a centrepiece in the world of cybersecurity, both as an aggravator and a victim. This framework is centred around three major laws: the Cybersecurity Law (CSL), the Data Security Law (DSL), and the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) [16].
The CSL (2017) is fundamental to China’s cyberspace sovereignty as it sets the overall framework for cybersecurity, including multi-level protection requirements, critical information infrastructure protection, and strict regulations for cross-border data transfers. The DSL complements the CSL by establishing requirements for the classification, protection, and processing of data based on its sensitivity and significance to national security, the economy, and public interest. Meanwhile, the PIPL(2021) mirrors the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in its comprehensive approach to personal information protection.
Despite its robust framework, China’s cybersecurity laws face challenges that highlight the dynamic and global nature of cybersecurity. Ambiguities in provisions such as the classification of “important data” “and “core data” leave room for inconsistent enforcement and compliance uncertainty. Furthermore, the fragmented oversight by multiple regulatory bodies, such as the Cyberspace Administration of China and the Ministry of Public Security, often results in jurisdictional overlaps and inefficiencies.
Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and the Internet of Things (IoT) present challenges that transcend national boundaries. These technologies introduce new vulnerabilities, requiring adaptive and forward-looking regulatory measures. Issues such as cross-border cyberattacks, international data transfer conflicts, and the ethical use of AI call for greater global collaboration to address cybersecurity concerns comprehensively. Balancing national security priorities with the need for international cooperation and technological innovation remains a key challenge.
Ink and Blood
To say that the laws we follow today simply underwent evolution is an understatement. To the general public, the laws may seem to be words written in an official, legal book, but in reality, they are the embodiment of the blood, energy and tears shed by those who lived through the times before us, and contributed to it to reach this point. In the same way, we contribute to the future evolutions of laws and legal systems that wait ahead of us, for as long as humans evolve, there will be creations of new ideas, systems and ways of living and with each new advancement comes the need to set boundaries, protections and frameworks that guide behaviour and resolve conflicts.
Article by:
Sruthi Mahadevan
Editor
PES MUN Society
Comments