Ironic, you may say, that at a time when the world is being asked to rally together in the fight against terrorism, our 'Focus' issue (chosen well before the 11 September attack) is themed around 'Comparative Law'.

Yet, perhaps it is fitting to analyse the underlying similarities or differences in different legal systems of the world at a time when it is stark apparent that the legal system of no one nation is able to produce a unified solution to a recognised global threat.

From an international angle, comparative law may be compared to international law which largely consists of rules and principles which govern the relations and dealings of nations with one another. Here, the distinction is made between public international law as opposed to private international law with the former being concerned with the question of rights between countries, or countries and the citizens of other countries, and the latter with conflicts between private individuals from different nations.

In recent times, however, the lines between public and private law have become blurred - the inevitable effects of a borderless world, perhaps? Yet, it is in the nature of human beings to try to preserve boundaries, even a modicum of it, and yet try to maintain a common thread or link to help ensure that the divide does not become so great that the twain does not meet.

According to Otto Pfersmann in 'Comparative Law as Interpretation and as Theory of Law' (Oxford University Comparative Law Forum, 2001), comparative law operates on the following assumptions: it is a transnational legal system, it allows itself to be unified with various or different legal systems, it is the science of foreign legal systems and it leads to improved jurisdictional solutions. Pfersmann asserts that many areas of comparative law relate not to science, but to politics, under the disguise of being related to science.

This is indeed true if one looks at the problems besetting the world today.

If we are to reverse the scourge of terrorism and other international crimes, we need a response that is united, unified, multi-faceted and, most important of all, enforced and sustained. As I see it, the September tragedy has provided a good opportunity for the international community to forge a new transnational accord to fight against the main current threats in our societies, whether they be terrorism, drug-trafficking, money-laundering, corruption, intellectual property invasion or technology deviance.

There must be a multi-lateral response, guided by clear political strategy, as well as an international commitment to pool intelligence and act on it, not merely by political or military means, but by legislative measures as well. With this must be the twin aims of isolating the evil gain-getters and not retaliating against whole countries, and addressing their political roots and not just the results of their manifestation.

However, at the international level, there is always serious difficulty in creating general legal categories in relation to particular regimes. One of the difficulties comes from our understanding of the notions of individual responsibility owed to the international community as a whole or holding an entire state responsible to the international community as a whole for particular conduct: whether in aiding or abetting or in failing to exercise due diligence or a duty of care. But the induction of general underlying rules - even if they are varied or derogated from given or known fields of law - is worth doing.

To this end, the European Union has already cleared the ground for a Europe-wide arrest warrant and speedy extradition procedures, by putting aside long-standing sensitivities about national sovereignty over extradition and other judicial matters and trying to reach an accord on judicial measures by December this year. This will include agreeing on a definition of offences as well as setting similar levels of sentencing for terrorist convictions in all EU member states.

Laws specific to each and every country undeniably still have a place in the world, in fact, it is imperative that they do, because as the ancient Chinese saying goes: 'each family must have its own rules, and so too each country must have its own laws'. However, what is more urgent and pressing in today's world, especially in the light of the recent terror attacks, is the need for peace and security.

And we are not talking about high flying ideals of world peace, but simply the freedom and security to practise and uphold the rule of law and to fight for a client without fighting for our lives in the process.

One of the challenges that faces the international legal community is its input in ensuring that international law embodies interests which are closely analogous to public law interests in other legal systems. We must strive to rid ourselves of the notion that legal obligations in international law can always be analogised to bilateral legal obligations and their breach to bilateral wrongs. To make progress, we may have to synthesise civilian and common law approaches to the law of obligations and to the consequence of its breach.

Be it comparative law or international law, both have their place in society and will be preserved. But right now, the rule of law should be upheld, guarded and fought for. Let us assist in the development and harmonisation of an international law which is pragmatic, practically-oriented, historically informed and futuristically progressive.

Only then can we, as a community of lawyers - locally and internationally - carry out our professional duties freely and without fear, notwithstanding the fact that we have always been living in a world that has been laden with global problems of security.

Palakrishnan, SC
President
The Law Society of Singapore

Your President Listens Members of the Law Society will continue to have the opportunity to meet Mr Palakrishnan, SC, President of the Law Society, at his fortnightly Saturday sessions at the Law Society's premises between 10.30am and 12noon. The sessions next month will be on 10 and 24 November 2001.