There exists a huge number of laws as defined in justice expression spatio-temporal variation. The laws from yesterday differ from the laws of tomorrow.

Why do countries differ in law systems accepting that justice principles should not be limited by/to geographic borders?

How can laws as defined in justice be efficient accepting that citizens do not know all these laws?

Are laws adjusted to the composition of local populations, e.g. related to biology-based personality profiles?

Are laws as defined in justice another form of Darwinain-based cultual evolution therefore expressing geographic variation?

If 'human-defined law' would defined as one of the many aspects of human behavioral expression, this would imply that different human populations at the same time share principles of law/behavioral characteristics, but also that law/behavioral characteristics is/are adjusted to local environmental/social conditions?

It's evident that the problem of international law on the recognition takes a logical position priority compared to the treatment of foreigners. In fact, in the first place necessary to determine whether a company/person exists in the law of belonging to could give "recognition" in different jurisdiction in which intends to operate. Only when the answer to the first question is positive may then consider the problem of determining the conditions and limitations to which the company/person is subject to when operating in out of order of belonging.

Law defines rules to live locally together, which obviously change where and how you live. Do you need complicated human-created laws when everybody would be able to follow the 10 commands that can be easily understood by everybody?

If people are biologically not able to follow simple community rules for X reasons, why should  complicated law-based rules be a more efficient way to regulate social interactions?

How is geographic variation in justice-based laws expressed in communities limited to oral communication (cf. wildlife?) versus written communication? Are laws based on oral communication structurally less complex, e.g. because of memorization constraints?

Are laws defined in justice only limited to what can be biologically perceived during social interactions, ignoring what cannot be perceived by the biology-based senses, e.g. visual/oral exchanges?

How can popular juries adequately judge accepting they do not know the details of the thousands of locally applicable written laws exposed in books. Are feelings in judgment more important than theory and how does it explain geographic variation in laws?

Are many more people involved in judging a person than in judging a manuscript submitted for publication, and if so, why?

If judgments are mainly based on communication skills, and communication skills express spatiotemporal variation, is this true justice?

What is the relative importance of social dominance (e.g. dictator) and social intelligence (e.g. democracy) in the development and application of judgments? What is the importance of impulsive feelings in this framework?

Perhaps yes, provided that their frame of applicability is so strictly technical, that cannot be found at other countries. But if the frame is a common one, then probably they could be applied by performing just a local adaptation only.

How can the exploitation of 10.000 pages of information concerning a single law case be efficiently treated by judges/lawyers/jury members? Imagine a scientist that has to read/truly understand 10.000 publication pages to truly master a single scientific topic: does this happen frequently?

What is the average number of publications per lawyer case versus scientific topic/idea/hypothesis? How many pages should be published/read/understood to truly understand a problem case and provide a solution?

How can travellers also differing in educatiuon backgrounds know all the laws from all the countries they are visiting accepting that laws and their details differ between countries?

How can laws/justice handle environmental impacts crossing national borders and expressed xxx years later, e.g. air pollution produced by country X influencing air quality in country Y having medical consequences for country Y?  Why do these types of justice express geographic variation?

What is the definition of justice when these aspects are simply/consciously ignored?

Given the dynamics in justice systems, is justice an absolute or relative human-based concept?

Overloaded 'tribunals'/Courthouses: Why is so much time and energy wasted to confirm administrative details that are already known for years anyway?