This paper will explore crucial judicial developments and legislative reforms within each of the traditions of Common law, Civil law, Islamic law and International law and how the key elements have forged the evolutionary journey towards uniformity of rules. Similarities and stark differences in the approach of the four abovementioned legal systems will be noted in an effort to verify which, if any, of the legal systems have achieved uniformity of rules. The extent to which uniformity of rules was lacking originally will also be examined. To inform the analysis of ‘uniformity of rules’ the Oxford Dictionary definition for uniform will be used. ie ‘not varying; the same in all cases and at all time’.[1] Therefore by extrapolation the understanding of ‘uniformity of rules’ will be taken to mean that the same rules should be applied to the same or, perhaps similar set of circumstances and by so doing the same outcomes should be achieved. This broad yet specific and quite literal conjecture will be used as a frame of reference for the following discussion.

In England prior to the Norman Conquest of 1066 AD local customary law prevailed. At this time customary law could be viewed as perhaps being uniform to the extent that it was the type of law applied throughout the land however, customs differed from one locality to the next. Subsequently, there was no consistency in customary rules across the board per se, nor in how they were applied.[2] Cook et al suggest that King William I was driven by the need to increase his jurisdictional power and control over the kingdom therefore introducing feudalism and travelling around the country holding court.[3] This is the basis of what we now recognise as Common law as opposed to its customary law predecessor. William’s practice of itinerant justice also shaped the early development of the doctrine of precedent