The uniqueness of each system stems from the fact that the risks of disasters are specific and that their presence and manifestation are not universal and the same for every country. Just as no country is the same in all other segments, their disaster risk systems are unequal. The paper describes the systems in four different countries, through observation and comparison of four areas of activity that are implemented in dealing with disasters. First of all, in the paper, the legal basis and institutional frameworks on which these systems rest in each of the countries were considered-starting from the international level and guidelines given at international conferences, to all by-laws and local disaster activity plans. It was considered how each of the states implements risk mitigation activities and how it increases preparedness for them. When the system recognizes risks, their probability and the frequency of their occurrence, activities are planned to prepare the country and every individual in it for a potentially unwanted event. Differences in the ways of mitigating risks and preparing all elements of the system and protected values for disasters are presented. The third element of action in the event of disasters concerns the response. In this segment, questions are raised regarding institutional solutions in the system, division of responsibilities, the priority of response and mobilization of resources at all levels. The last phase, the one that occurs after the disaster, and that is the recovery from it, depends on the reaction. In the paper, it was discussed how in the end, when a disaster occurs and when damage to the population, environment, material and other goods occurs, how each of the states implements reconstruction, i.e. how it recovers-whether that recovery was previously well planned or whether ad hoc solutions are applied. Conclusion: Looking at the analyzed countries, it can be concluded that it is difficult to establish whether the harmful consequences of disasters have a more serious impact on fully developed or less developed and poorer societies. When a disaster occurs in developed societies that are modernized, have high living standards, developed technologies, specific critical infrastructure, and the like, those societies suffer great losses at the time of the disaster if, for example, critical infrastructure is affected and, for example, the use of technology or the functioning of the economy is prevented. Such societies have financial and other opportunities for quick recovery. Poor societies have less preparedness, they do not lose many resources in a disaster, but they remain without the necessities of life and it takes a lot of time for reconstruction and recovery. Also, analyzing the response to disasters in the mentioned countries, it can be said that in each of them, there is delegation and decentralization, i.e., that the first response lies in the hands of the lowest level of government and the resources available to that level. The response goes to a higher level depending on whether the rescue and protection requirements exceed the lower levels or not. As far as recovery is concerned, it can be said from experience that it is necessary to plan for the occurrence of disasters with the budget. At the same time, it is necessary to provide financial resources not only for response to disasters, resources, equipment and everything needed for response to disasters but also for recovery and reconstruction of what was destroyed. If not adequately planned, there may be sudden and additional costs in situations where the damage is large and the previously planned budget is insufficient. All this suggests that adequate assessment and planning are necessary so that disasters threaten the community and its assets as little as possible. What is noticeably more prevalent in the field of disaster recovery is insurance. Although this type of assistance is still in development, since not all regions of a country are equally developed and able to afford insurance, it represents an effective element when it comes to the recovery of individuals, families, businesses, and the like. Comparing Germany, the USA, Russia, and China, it can be concluded that each country has established and regulated a normative legal basis on which the DRM system is further built. In Russia, there is a simple division of disasters into those related to conflicts between states and those originating from sources such as nature and the human factor, and based on such a simple division, laws have been passed that focus on the terms 'defense', 'resources', and the like and where there is no large number of laws and by-laws that regulate the area of disaster risk and disaster response. On the other hand, there is the example of China, where a large number of laws and other regulations governing this area have been passed, which are often changed and updated. A problem arises from such a broad regulation, which is reflected in the insufficiently defined division of responsibilities. If we take into account the number of the population of China, but also the fact that it is subject to serious disasters (earthquakes, typhoons, floods, droughts, etc.) and that the consequences are serious, excessive regulation and various insufficiently clear responsibilities can pose a problem in practical operation - when a disaster happens. Within the German normative legal framework, one can see an example of preventive action - a focus on adapting to climate change, which can be considered the cause of certain disasters, but also an example of action by the identified flood risk. In German legislation, great importance is given to the infrastructure and its protection, as well as the financial aspect in cases of disasters. Germany, as a developed country, thinks beyond its borders and response range and establishes a system that will enable mutual assistance and the participation of other countries in joint activities. As part of such an initiative, issues related to business, risk transfer, financial insurance, and the like are also considered. What is characteristic of the USA is that there is noticeable progress in the regulation of disaster response - from completely neglecting preventive action and emphasizing only armed threats to action based on experience and lessons learned. An example is the acts that were adopted after disasters that had serious consequences for the USA. With these acts, changes were made in the way of responding and especially in the way of assisting from the highest to the local level. Risk mitigation in each studied country implies good planning of the risk itself, its possible outcomes, but also all the activities that follow when a disaster occurs. The focus is on mitigating the consequences that arise first of all for the population and then for the economy. When it comes to the population, the paper provides interesting examples of how countries prepare the population for response through various pieces of training and exercises - the example of the USA and Germany, which hold training for a response, first aid, evacuation, and the like, and the example of Russia, which organized competitions between cities in the preparedness area, etc. In addition, the use of technology to increase preparedness for response is noticeable in each country. Smart devices, mobile applications, weather alarms, and the like have been used in different ways to educate the population, gather information, and conduct surveillance. When considering responding to disasters, the principle of subsidiarity is represented in the countries in question. In each state, it ranges from the lowest local, provincial, and other lower levels. When the demands placed by the disaster on the local level are too great, then resources from a higher level are used. With Germany, the USA, Russia, and China, one can observe the respect of one of the priorities of the Hyogo framework for action - and that is the effort to make disaster risk reduction a priority at the national and local level. Each state has an established body (council, ministry, agency, office) at the highest level, whose responsibility is mainly the coordination of activities during disaster response. In the USA, such a body deals with research, education, training, response, assistance, and other activities, while in Russia, for example, the Ministry in the event of disasters supervises all civil services. For recovery after a disaster, it is crucial to adequately assess the risk and determine as closely as possible the potential damage it can bring. The framework for recovery in the USA is based on such estimates. Post-disaster planning is carried out within it. Financial resources are very important in recovery. Reserves and funds must be well planned, as was the case that was shown in the paper on the example of Germany. On the contrary, the example of Russia was given, which had to withdraw the reserves planned for the following year in the current one, since the damage caused in the event of a disaster exceeded all planned financial resources. Noticeable in every country is the existence of disaster insurance. In some countries, it is regulated and recognized as a solution, as is the case in the USA and Germany, while for China it is considered that such a solution would give results, but it has not yet been implemented. By comparing Germany, the USA, China, and Russia, conclusions can be drawn about the successful functioning of the system, which is of key importance for the protection of the values of each state. For a system, such as a system that is activated before, during, and after disasters, to function, it must be developed on an adequate basis that is adapted to the actual situation and practical operation. Its elements must be connected, and the flow and exchange of information must be organized and functional. In addition, a clear division of responsibility and competence is important when a quick and timely response is required, and it must first of all be normatively regulated. Also, such a system cannot be uniform and unchanging. As the assessed risks on which it is established change, so must it. The system must be comprehensive, i.e., it must take into account both the entire state embodied in the government representatives and their institutions and it must also take into account the individual and his possible contribution to responding in emergencies. Established systems cannot be ideal, losses must occur, but it is important that they are developed in such a way that they can preserve the vital interests of states - human lives and that they can enable a quick recovery for the entire society based on good planning of all relevant resources.