The idea that man's law exists or is even needed, implies that there aren't already laws governing all that exists, so we have to make new laws to fill in these gaps.
Considering we don't know everything, it's an arrogant claim we make here. The other approach, and a more humble one too, is to seek to discover the laws already in place that covers all relationships. In other words the rules defining relations between all things (matter) and the rules defining relations between all beings (with all various degrees of independent awareness).
We might call them spiritual laws, divine laws, moral laws, natural laws, physical laws, Sharia law, common law, commerical law etc. but these are just arbitrary classifications of law.
The simple test to figure out if a "law" is a law, is whether it can be applied consistently in the context it is said to be applicable. If it can't, it's something like an opinion but not a law.
Consistency is not a pre-requisite, law differs in geo-graphical spread and is veru dynamic in nature.
Enjoy the vote and reward!
Thats true, legal rules are different across various jurisdictions. But these are more so rules by expressed or implied social contracts. Not strictly speaking the same as law. When there's no consistent way to apply a law, in the context said to be applicable (by time / place), doesn't that show there's an absence of rule of law or absence of law all together? If it's one rule for you and one rule for me and another for whomever else comes along and that changes from moment to moment, there's really no rules being applied. Even doing that with just a relationship of two people is unworkable.