The Historical Evolution of Law: From Ancient Codes to Contemporary Legal Orders

Jun 1, 2024
15 min read

Author: Lee Zhang

Affiliation: Swiss International University SIU Bishkek

ORCID iD: 0009-0006-7478-8357

Received 14 March 2024; Revised 29 April 2024; Accepted 14 May 2024; Available online 1 June 2024; Version of Record 1 October 2024.

Volume 1, December 2024, (10004)

Abstract

This article reconsiders the historical evolution of law from ancient codes to modern legal orders from a conceptual and comparative legal-historical perspective. The central question is not just how law has moved from custom to codification, constitutionalism, international law and digital regulation, but why legal orders have had to be created time and again as social actors have encountered conflict, uncertainty, unequal power and problems of coordination. This paper argues that law has been a strategic governance technology for much of its history: it stabilizes expectations, constrains opportunism, allocates authority, and transforms recurring social conflict into institutional procedures. Methodologically, the study undertakes a structured conceptual review of key legal-historical periods and selected current governance tools, with a focus on the evolution of legal authority, enforcement, legitimacy, and strategic incentives over time. This article contributes to legal history by replacing a story of linear progress with a more pointed account of institutional adaptation. It contributes to game theory by showing how legal institutions change payoff structures, mitigate coordination failures, and make credible commitments possible. It makes a contribution to strategic studies by linking law to state formation, sovereignty, war and transnational order. It pushes forward AI governance by helping explain why current conversations on algorithmic accountability and risk-based regulation are repeating age-old legal questions: how to regulate powerful players, how to make decisions contestable, and how to maintain legitimacy in the face of technological change. The article develops five theoretical propositions and concludes that contemporary legal orders are best understood as systems of layered history in which coercion, interpretation, rights and strategic coordination are combined.

Keywords: legal history, evolution of law, rule of law, strategic interaction, game theory, strategic studies, AI governance, constitutionalism, international law

1. Introduction

Law is one of the most enduring institutions invented by organized human societies. It establishes duties, empowers institutions, governs change, settles disputes and gives public expression to ideas of justice. But law is not merely a collection of rules. It is also a historical instrument of strategic interaction management. When individuals, groups, rulers, firms, or states act under uncertainty they have to predict how others will act. Law reduces this ambiguity by creating rules, sanctions, procedures and expectations in the public mind. Thus, the history of law is of interest for more than antiquarian reasons. Ancient codes, medieval legal pluralism, common law reasoning, civil law codification, constitutionalism, international law, human rights and digital regulation all demonstrate how legal systems respond to changing problems of authority and coordination. The Code of Hammurabi combined punishment with royal command in public. Roman law developed categories of law in property, obligation, and procedure. Medieval canon law, customary law, feudal law, and Islamic legal traditions showed that multiple legal authorities could exist even without a single, centralized state. Modern constitutionalism subjected arbitrary power to law by submitting public authority itself to legal limits. International law established normative expectations for the behavior of sovereign states. Today’s questions of AI governance are questions of whether legal systems can govern computational power, opacity, and cross-border technological risk. The gap in the literature is that many general accounts of legal evolution are descriptive ones. They often list legal traditions chronologically, but they do not describe how legal development changes strategic incentives among social actors. By contrast, game-theoretic and strategic studies literature tends to treat institutions as background conditions, rather than as historically formed legal structures. In contrast, the literature on AI governance tends to focus on regulatory instruments today, without placing these within the longer history of law as a response to power, uncertainty, and institutional legitimacy. This article addresses that gap by asking: how has law historically operated as a mechanism of strategic coordination, and what lessons can we learn for contemporary AI governance? The article makes three assertions. First, the evolution of law is not a straightforward transition from primitive rules to modern rationality. It is a layered process in which older forms of authority continue to influence newer institutions. Second, persistent strategic problems drive legal development: credible commitment, information asymmetry, enforcement, legitimacy, and conflict management. Third, the ongoing debates around AI governance are not all new. They are a contemporary take on an age-old legal question: how can societies create rules that constrain powerful actors, but are flexible enough to adapt to changing social and technological conditions?

2. Methodology

This article is based on a qualitative conceptual review, supported by a comparative legal-historical analysis. It is not an empirical study of a single jurisdiction and it does not purport to reconstruct in full detail every legal tradition. Rather, it chooses key legal-historical moments that are generally accepted as institutionally important, and subjects them to a uniform analytical framework of source of authority, dominant coordination problem, enforcement logic, and contribution to later legal development. The corpus comprises foundational legal materials, including ancient codes, Roman law, early modern public law, constitutional texts and international human rights instruments, as well as recent scholarship and policy instruments on AI governance. The recent sources were selected because they are relevant to rule-of-law challenges, AI regulation, international coordination, risk governance, and strategic cooperation. Official instruments such as the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, OECD AI Principles, the Bletchley Declaration, the G7 Hiroshima AI Process, and the United Nations report Governing AI for Humanity are governance texts, not evidence of success of implementation (European Parliament and Council, 2024; NIST, 2023; OECD, 2024; UNESCO, 2021; United Nations AI Advisory Body, 2024). The analysis was conducted in four steps. The first step was to identify key stages in the evolution of law: ancient codification, medieval pluralism, early modern state formation, modern constitutional and international law, and contemporary digital regulation. Second, each stage was conceptually coded for the problem it primarily addressed, e.g. social order, jurisdictional conflict, centralization, rights protection, interstate cooperation, or technological accountability. Third, the results were translated into theoretical propositions that can be applied by future legal, strategic and governance research. Fourth, the discussion examined the contribution of the propositions to game theory, strategic studies, and AI governance. This design is appropriate because the article’s purpose is theory-building and conceptual clarification, not hypothesis testing.

Table 1. Analytical Framework for the Historical Evolution of Law

Analytical stage	Core materials reviewed	Main strategic problem addressed
Ancient codification	Written legal codes, royal authority, public punishment	Stabilizing conduct and reducing discretionary retaliation
Medieval pluralism	Canon law, customary law, feudal law, Islamic jurisprudence	Managing overlapping authority and jurisdictional diversity
State formation and codification	Common law, civil codes, sovereignty, public administration	Centralizing authority and making rules predictable
Modern constitutional and international law	Constitutions, human rights instruments, international institutions	Limiting public power and coordinating states under conditions of sovereignty
Digital and AI governance	Risk-based regulation, soft law, standards, accountability frameworks	Governing opaque, cross-border, and fast-changing technological power

Note. The table is a conceptual map for the article. It does not claim exhaustive coverage of all legal systems or all regions.

3. From Ancient Codes to Medieval Legal Pluralism

Written legal systems first appeared as political and economic complexity grew and the need for stable rules developed. The Code of Ur-Nammu and the Code of Hammurabi exemplify the transition from practices and rule of man to the articulation of norms in public. These dealt with property, injury, family relations, labor, and exchange. They did not deliver modern equality, but their importance lies in their institutional logic. Written rules made expectations more visible and punishment more publicly justifiable.Ancient law also shows that legal order was not separate from political authority. Law in Mesopotamia confirmed the royal power. In Egypt, Ma’at connected justice to cosmic balance and the sovereign’s duty. Legal reform was connected with civic participation and public judgment in Greek city-states. In Rome legal development was more systematic, particularly with the Twelve Tables, the juristic interpretation, the jus gentium and the later Corpus Juris Civilis. Roman law’s lasting power lay in its classification of disputes, its procedural organization, and its development of concepts of property, obligation and public authority. In strategic terms, ancient law transformed private revenge into public order. It altered the predicted costs of violence, theft, breach of contract, and disobedience. Even when unequal and hierarchical, law mitigated some forms of uncertainty through the legibility of sanctions. This is why early codification needs to be understood as a governance innovation: it told the public how authority would respond to recurring conflict. Medieval legal orders had their own development. They were not integrated systems under one sovereign legislature. In Europe, canon law governed church institutions and many aspects of personal life and feudal law regulated land, status and reciprocal obligations. Custom was still powerful locally. Islamic law emerged from religious sources, juristic reasoning and schools of interpretation, giving rise to a complex and plural legal tradition in diverse political environments. Such arrangements suggest that legal pluralism is no modern day anomaly. This is a normal condition of social order. The medieval period thus complicates linear narratives of legal development. Its importance does not lie in being less modern, but in showing how legal authority can be spread across many institutions. In game-theoretic terms, plural legal orders generate both coordination benefits and forum conflicts. They allow different communities to identify familiar normative systems but also pose questions of hierarchy, jurisdiction and ultimate authority. This tension can still be seen today in the tensions between domestic law, religious law, transnational private norms and international standards.

4. Centralization, Constitutionalism, and International Legal Order

The emergence of the modern state had a profound impact on the evolution of early modern law. Law became more and more associated with centralized authority as rulers accumulated territory and administrative capacity. Civil law in continental Europe moved towards codification, most famously the Napoleonic Code of 1804. Common law developed by judicial precedent and procedure. The two traditions took different forms, but both served strategic purposes: predictability and enforceability and institutional continuity. The rise of sovereignty also changed legal thinking outside the state. Grotius and Vattel were instrumental in developing early modern ideas about war, diplomacy, and legal relations among states. While the historical reality was more complex than the simplified textbook story, the Peace of Westphalia became a symbolic reference point for territorial sovereignty. But the deeper point is that international law was born out of the need of states to have rules for coexistence in the absence of a world government. That is the basic strategic problem of international law: the design of credible obligations among actors with coercive capacity and formal independence. Modern constitutionalism added a further layer. Law became not merely a tool with which governments ruled society, but also a framework by which society could limit government. Written constitutions, separation of powers, rights provisions, judicial review and representative institutions turned political conflict into procedures. Later, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) gave the world a common language for dignity, equality and rights but enforcement remained uneven. Constitutionalism is therefore both a normative and strategic achievement. It allows for credible commitments by binding rulers to public rules. This reduces the risk that temporary political winners will completely rewrite the game in their own interest. It sets procedures for losers to continue to participate on the basis of expectations of future opportunities and legal protection. When constitutional commitments are weak, political rivalry easily becomes an existential conflict. International law and human rights law bring this logic into a tougher domain. States may agree to norms, treaties and institutions but enforcement is often decentralized and politically constrained. This does not render international law irrelevant. Rather, it means that international law often works through reputation, reciprocity, institutional monitoring, domestic incorporation and the slow normalization of expectations. This is at the heart of the study of strategy: legal rules influence the conduct of war, diplomacy, trade, sanctions, alliances and accountability, even if power remains decisive.

5. Contemporary Legal Orders and AI Governance

Modern legal systems face challenges that older legal frameworks did not anticipate, including automated decision-making, cybersecurity, digital infrastructure, and algorithmic accountability. The challenges extend to the very foundation of law — responsibility, accountability, evidence, and rights in the face of routine automated and system decisions (Huq, 2021; Rodrigues, 2020).

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act is one of the first initiatives to legislate AI based on a legal framework of risk. It creates categories of AI systems based on risk, bans some practices, and places obligations on high risk systems and certain general purpose AI systems (European Parliament and Council, 2024). NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework is also different. It is a voluntary framework for the mapping, measurement, management, and governance of AI (NIST, 2023). The instruments by UNESCO and OECD are based on human rights and the principles of fairness, accountability, and transparency and responsible innovation (OECD, 2024; UNESCO, 2021). The United Nations report Governing AI for Humanity identifies global governance gaps and proposes international coordination mechanisms (United Nations AI Advisory Body, 2024).

These instruments diverge in the level of legal authority, design of institutions, and the range of their jurisdiction. However, what they attempt to do is historically familiar: to make powerful actors more predictable and accountable. Developers and users of AI, as well as governments that deploy and use AI, face a strategic environment with rapid change, asymmetric information, and competition. Moreover, there are external costs that traverse borders, and within that context, they can disregard AI safety, transparency, and contestability. The private gain from deploying an AI system can be greater than the private risk. This is a classic governance issue, and cannot be classified as a technical issue.

The most recent research furthers this institutional challenge. Dafoe et al. (2021) contend that AI systems should be classified as social and cooperative infrastructural systems rather than being purely technical. Anderljung et al. (2023) focus on the fact that cutting-edge AI systems evolve rapidly and, once developed, their harmful capabilities will be difficult to control. Zaidan and Ibrahim (2024) present AI governance as part of a rapidly changing regulatory environment, and the legitimacy of law will become more relevant. Roberts et al. (2023) have explained the divergence in the governance of nations, while Avbelj (2024) contends that AI is testing the limits of constitutionalism within an algorithmic society.

History teaches that as new forms of power emerge, older systems of governance become ineffective, and law must evolve. Ancient law dealt with urban conflicts and hierarchies. Medieval law dealt with overlapping jurisdictions. State law evolved in response to the consolidation of territories. Constitutional law originated to deal with the arbitrary power of the state. International law grew to manage the interdependence of states. The governance of AI is responding to the new form of power–computational power that crosses borders, operates at large scale, and may be difficult for the impacted to understand or contest.

6. Findings: Theoretical Propositions

The analysis provides support for five theoretical propositions. They are not statistical hypotheses. They are conceptual propositions, intended to guide future research on legal history, institutional theory, strategic studies and AI governance.

Table 2. Theoretical Propositions Derived from the Analysis

Proposition	Theoretical meaning
P1: Codification proposition	The shift from custom to written law reduces uncertainty by making sanctions, obligations, and authority publicly legible.
P2: Pluralism proposition	Legal pluralism persists when multiple communities or institutions can provide legitimacy, but it creates strategic competition over jurisdiction and final authority.
P3: Commitment proposition	Constitutional and procedural law increases stability when it credibly limits powerful actors, including rulers, agencies, firms, and technical systems.
P4: Strategic order proposition	International law matters even without centralized enforcement because it shapes expectations through reciprocity, reputation, institutional monitoring, and repeated interaction.
P5: AI governance proposition	AI regulation is historically continuous with earlier legal efforts to govern concentrated power, but it requires new mechanisms for opacity, speed, scale, and cross-border risk.

Note. The propositions synthesize the article’s historical and conceptual analysis. They are designed for future empirical, doctrinal, or comparative testing.

7. Discussion: Contributions to Game Theory, Strategic Studies, and AI Governance

This article makes a contribution to the field of game theory by reinterpreting the evolution of law as the historical evolution of mechanisms that alter strategic incentives. Law shapes payoff structures by tying consequences to behavior. This leads to common expectations and thus reduces coordination failures. It underpins credible commitment by rendering promises enforceable by courts, procedures, reputation or institutional sanctions. It also contributes to resolving repeated-game problems since actors can structure future conduct around known rules. This is not to say that law eliminates strategic behavior. Instead, law constrains strategic behavior by fixing permissible moves, penalties, rights and procedures. This contribution matters because game theory tends to abstract away from institutions into rules of the game and to pay less attention to their historical emergence. Legal history shows that the rules themselves are the result of struggle, adaptation and institutional learning. Ancient codes, medieval jurisdictional arrangements, constitutional limits and international norms are not merely the background conditions. Historically they are produced tools for managing strategic conflict. The article contributes to strategic studies by relating law to power, sovereignty, war and institutional restraint. Strategic studies often focuses on issues of coercion, deterrence, alliances, military capabilities and state interests. Legal history further tells us that strategy is rarely pursued in a normative vacuum. Rules governing treaties, diplomacy, trade, war, human rights, sanctions and international organizations shape the environment in which strategic actors calculate options. Powerful actors can use law, but law can also constrain them, create reputational costs and give institutional resources to smaller actors. The article contributes to AI governance by demonstrating that current regulatory debates are part of a longer history of legal adaptation to new forms of power. Some describe AI governance as being without precedent. It is without precedent in technical form, but not in institutional logic. The usual legal problems remain: power, responsibility, proof, contestability, jurisdiction, implementation, legitimacy, and rights protection. What changes is the governance object. AI systems are opaque, scalable, probabilistic, and embedded in private infrastructures. Governance must therefore include hard law, standards, audits, documentation, risk management, human oversight and global coordination. In practice, this means that AI governance cannot be based on ethical principles or corporate pledges alone. Soft law can help set shared expectations, especially in fast-moving areas, but sustainable governance needs devices that make responsibility traceable and contestable. This fits the historical pattern the article identifies: legal systems are more resilient when they translate diffuse expectations into institutions, processes, and enforceable duties.

8. Limitations and Further Research

There are three limitations to this study. First, it is broad in scope. It selects major legal-historical stages rather than a detailed archive of each tradition. Second, the article is conceptual, not empirical. The propositions, therefore, call for additional examination through historical case studies, comparative institutional analysis, or formal modeling. Third, the article incorporates Islamic law and acknowledges non-Western legal traditions but is inevitably selective and cannot fully capture the diversity of African, Asian, Indigenous, and customary legal orders. The argument can be extended in four directions in future research. The propositions could be tested, for example, by focused case studies on the strategic effects of codification in commercial law or the role of constitutional courts in credible commitment. Second, game-theoretic models could be developed to more explicitly incorporate legal history as an endogenous product of repeated conflict. Third, strategic studies could study the effect of legal norms on deterrence, escalation control, alliance credibility, and governance of autonomous systems. Fourth, AI governance research could compare whether risk-based regulation, audit regimes, standards and international soft-law instruments really change incentives for developers, deployers, regulators and affected communities.

9. Conclusion

The historical evolution of law is most appropriately understood as a layered process of governance strategies. The law has continually appeared, from ancient codes to modern legal systems, to ground expectations, to control power, to lessen unpredictability, and to turn conflict into formal process. Its development has never been linear or straightforwardly progressive. Legal systems have protected rights and ensured accountability, but they have also been about hierarchy, exclusion and political power. The main contribution of the article is to connect legal history and strategic interaction. Authority was made visible by ancient codification. Medieval pluralism demonstrated how law can operate across overlapping communities. Modern constitutionalism placed credible limits on public power at the center of legitimacy. International law has developed normative structures for sovereign actors that interact repeatedly. All of these historic problems are being carried into a new technological environment by AI governance. The conclusion therefore is contribution-focused: legal history helps explain why AI governance cannot be reduced to technical standards, market self-regulation or abstract ethics. But AI governance requires the same institutional attributes that have produced lasting legal regimes throughout history: public authority, accountability, contestability, enforceable duties, and legitimacy. The foundation of future research in the legal theory, game theory, strategic studies and AI governance is clearer from the strategic and historical perspective of a legal institution.

References

Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2023). Power and progress: Our thousand-year struggle over technology and prosperity. PublicAffairs.
AI Safety Summit. (2023). The Bletchley Declaration by countries attending the AI Safety Summit, 1-2 November 2023. UK Government.
Anderljung, M., Barnhart, J., Korinek, A., Leung, J., O'Keefe, C., Whittlestone, J., Avin, S., Brundage, M., Bullock, J., Cass-Beggs, D., Chang, B., Collins, T., Fist, T., Hadfield, G., Hayes, A., Ho, L., Hooker, S., Horvitz, E., Kolt, N., ... Wolf, K. (2023). Frontier AI regulation: Managing emerging risks to public safety. arXiv.
Aristotle. (1998). Politics (C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published ca. 350 BCE)
Avbelj, M. (2024). Reconceptualizing constitutionalism in the AI run algorithmic society. German Law Journal, 25(7), 1081-1094.
Bengio, Y., et al. (2024). International scientific report on the safety of advanced AI: Interim report. International AI Safety Report.
Blackstone, W. (1765-1769). Commentaries on the laws of England. Clarendon Press.
Cassese, A. (2005). International law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Dafoe, A., Bachrach, Y., Hadfield, G., Horvitz, E., Larson, K., & Graepel, T. (2021). Cooperative AI: Machines must learn to find common ground. Nature, 593(7857), 33-36.
European Parliament and Council. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Official Journal of the European Union.
G7. (2023). Hiroshima AI Process Comprehensive Policy Framework. G7 Digital and Tech Ministers.
Grotius, H. (2005). The rights of war and peace (R. Tuck, Ed.). Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1625)
Hammurabi. (1915). The Code of Hammurabi (L. W. King, Trans.). Yale Law School Avalon Project. (Original work ca. 1754 BCE)
Henkin, L. (1999). The age of rights. Columbia University Press.
Huq, A. Z. (2021). Artificial intelligence and the rule of law. In M. D. Dubber, F. Pasquale, & S. Das (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ethics of AI. Oxford University Press.
Justinian I. (1932). The civil law, including the Twelve Tables, the Institutes of Gaius, the Rules of Ulpian, the Opinions of Paulus, the Enactments of Justinian, and the Constitutions of Leo (S. P. Scott, Trans.). Central Trust Company. (Original compilation 529-534 CE)
Lessig, L. (2006). Code: Version 2.0. Basic Books.
Madison, J., Hamilton, A., & Jay, J. (2003). The Federalist Papers. Signet Classics. (Original work published 1787-1788)
Napoleonic Code. (1804). The Civil Code of the French.
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). U.S. Department of Commerce.
OECD. (2024). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. OECD Legal Instruments.
Roberts, H., Babuta, A., Morley, J., Thomas, C., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2023). Artificial intelligence regulation in the United Kingdom: A path to good governance and global leadership? Internet Policy Review, 12(2).
Rodrigues, R. (2020). Legal and human rights issues of AI: Gaps, challenges and vulnerabilities. Journal of Responsible Technology, 4, 100005.
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO.
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations General Assembly.
United Nations AI Advisory Body. (2024). Governing AI for humanity: Final report. United Nations.
Vattel, E. de. (2008). The law of nations (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore, Eds.). Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1758)
Zaidan, E., & Ibrahim, I. A. (2024). AI governance in a complex and rapidly changing regulatory landscape: A global perspective. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 1121.