I believe you may have answered your own question. 'Best' is an entirely subjective category.

All the questions here are mine. The answers given as of 2025 are taken from artificial intelligence.

I would like to state that while creating awareness here, I am also looking for an answer to the question of what should be done better in artificial intelligence. Because there is really a big gap. Someone needs to find a solution to this urgently.

For your information.

Best regards,

Excellent idea. AI is notoriously bad at answering law questions because virtually no legal system is linear. Lots of lawyers have been caught out by AI hallucinations, as they are known. Certainly lots of law students using AI for essays and dissertations have been seriously caught out by the massive errors AI makes.

I used to get lots of laughs out of being the invented cases and melange of legal principles from every system in the world when students submitted essays.

:)

I would also like to emphasize that when I asked my question, I asked as 'the best'. Artificial intelligence gave its best. But it gave this by scanning the data on the internet. So where was the data obtained from on the internet? Does the artificial intelligence get this data from reliable places? It should be able to give us these things clearly. Otherwise, it would be as you said, but the answers given by this artificial intelligence are quite satisfactory. I find it successful.

Dear Seyda,

I am sure that the reason you have asked this question is because you have stumbled on a major problem with legal studies and social science today: there is an understanding and increased recognition of the concept of relativism (and partially an understanding of the scientific understanding of scientific determinism and causality that is used in natural science but that social scientists are afraid of for religious reasons) but there is a fear to actually carry the principles to their conclusion in ways that actually influence policy and make change.

Here is what I mean. We know today that cultures adapt to their environments and that all systems in cultures, including political and legal systems are a reflection of surviving within those environments. (You can take a look at my article, "Predicting Political Systems" on how this works.) But since colonial powers and political powers within complex societies now work to exercise their influences top down to remake other cultures and their own societies (in ways that are NOT sustainable), we assume that cultures/societies can simply change top-down as a "choice" and we reverse causality.

The principles of what are "good" or the "best" systems are reflected in international law in several treaties on human rights that followed WWII but that have now mostly been torn up in promotion of globalization, the current form of neo-colonialism that is collapsing (you can take a look at pieces of mine on the Universal Development goals that organizes what international law is and how to apply the measures in development on political, legal and economic systems, my piece examining the SDGs and their failure to follow the international legal standards, and on the "Prisoner's Dilemma of Sustainability" for example).

The "best" system is one that includes a full BALANCING of human rights and participation within the political and legal system so that the two layers of rights (community/ethnic rights at one level and then individual rights like gender equality, racial/ethnic equality) are recognized and that there are full balances and protections (against influences of money, access and power) so that there is fully equal participation in all decisions and in oversight oversight of institutions that have power (economic, military, police) and influence citizens.

In a legal system there were several mechanisms to assure these balances that have existed historically but that have now been dismantled. They include balancing of judges as part of "federalism" so that interests directly represent ethnic sovereignty in the judiciary in a form of checks and balances (originally in the U.S., the 9 Supreme Court justices represented three blocs of states that were ethnically different; now they are all mostly the same in their ideologies but simply have different physical characteristics), working jury systems that can nullify the power of judges and that work in ALL cases (grand juries and "petit" juries, and include citizen groups constantly monitoring and overseeing organizations), socialized legal systems so everyone has equal access to lawyers rather than having lawyers for sale, "private attorney general" mechanisms so that prosecutions are not centralized and controlled by government but are open to competition from citizens, and mechanisms like class action suits. I have described how this system can be restored by reincorporating these historical mechanisms in the U.S. ("A Return to Democracy" and "A Return to Community") and in some other articles. Most of these discussions are suppressed today in academia which is why your question is left half unanswered. It is by design. History and social science have been rewritten to assure that these measures and mechanisms are forgotten. I have been able to publish some articles on "Remaking the Social Sciences" but it isn't easy to have any of these discussions today, so thanks for opening the door in this forum.

Best,

David Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (Hon.)

Member, California Bar and International human rights lawyer and rule of law consultant

There iso course the somewhat cynical interpretation preferred by Austin.

“Law is ‘a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by intelligent beings having power over him”

Dear David Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (Hon.),

It wasn't a personal question. Everything I asked here is very general. Subjects that can concern everyone. Answers given by artificial intelligence. Since we always look for the best in life, I'm just curious.

Sincerely,

Some of the best legal systems in the world are known for their fairness, efficiency, and strong protection of human rights. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have highly transparent and well-functioning legal systems that emphasize equality and justice. Germany is recognized for its strong constitutional protections and a well-organized judiciary, while the United Kingdom has a long-standing common law system that influences many other countries. The United States has a robust legal system with strong constitutional rights, though its complexity can sometimes lead to challenges. Singapore is praised for its efficient and corruption-free legal framework, making it one of the best places for business and governance. Canada is also known for its fair and inclusive legal system, ensuring strong protections for human rights. India, with the world's largest democracy, has a well-structured legal framework based on the Constitution of India, which upholds fundamental rights and ensures judicial independence. Its Supreme Court has played a vital role in protecting civil liberties and interpreting laws for social justice. While India faces challenges like judicial delays, ongoing legal reforms aim to improve efficiency and accessibility. Overall, the best legal systems are those that ensure justice, protect rights, and operate transparently while adapting to modern challenges.

It is next to impossible to answer the question, because the knowledge we tend to have about a foreign legal system is usually so limited, that we cannot compare. If comparison is done, it is often based on law in the books. But that is insufficient. A foreign legal system can only be grasped by

living in it for a considerable time.

I wonder what make you asked that question and why you think AI is the only tool to answer everything. I dont think we need to fix AI. We just need to refine our understanding of the use of the tool. Its just a tool, out if many other tools to seek answers or knowledge.