Sovereignity of Imperial Worlds?

[aramis]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aramis:
Exit Visa clearly establishes that there is no fundamental right to interstellar travel unless citizens have been specifically granted it by the Imperium (presumably this would cover Imperial nobles, officials and service members).

Whups, hang on a mo', you lost me there.

Exit Visa is about a crew that is held up because of a paperwork irregularity most likely resulting from a criminal act in the captain's past. We're into criminal law territory here, which takes a general discussion of the rights of citizenship off the table.

Also, nowhere does the adventure suggest that the Alell starport bureacrats are Imperials - only one of the thirty-three officials listed in the adventure is designated as an Imperial (the assistant consul). With all due respect, I think you're drawing inferences here that the adventure doesn't support. </font>[/QUOTE]Exit Visa clearly makes out the starport as being Allel territory. Yes. They are under no obligation to let the captain go. They also essentially want the crew to prove themselves innocent.

It's probably best left to ProtoTraveller.

But remember also, my views of Exit Visa are based upon having NO later editions contributions, and no access to JTAS at the time.

Given TTB and Deluxe Traveller, with Adventure 0, Shadows, and Exit Visa, plus Supplement 4, one can very quickly come to some, shall we say, divergent, views of the Imperium.

I think the "every sophont is a citizen" is probably just about the worst thing any government can do... it means that you must treat even enemy combattants as citizens. Sure, it means you can foist them off as criminals, rather than POW's, but it's not a good thing. It precludes also "resident aliens"; the Aslan Ambassadore is, by that definition, is a Citizen.

One can not extricate, either, the link between citizenship, subjecthood, and sovereignty. If every sophont is an imperial citizen, just by being present, the implications for IMoJ interference become MUCH higher.

I've always used the "Every sophont is a protected being" but not the "Citizen" part.

 

[rogermccarthy]

Good point on Exit Visa which I haven't read for a long time.

However IIRC the very similar scenario in the TTA is all about trying to export goods from one imperial world to another - and the fact that numberless hurdles are imposed by local bureaucrats to doing so does not mean that the Imperium does not have free trade (although it may suggest that Traveller writers have rather hazy ideas about what free trade actually is).

Aramis - it's not 'every sophont is a citizen' but 'any recognised sentient creature native or naturalised by a member world of the Imperium'

Obviously there is going to be a vast corpus of primary and secondary legislation defining those terms.

However what the evidence doesn't support is a Roman-style full citizen versus subject/provincial distinction.

The actual situation is probably closer to the honestiores/humiliores distinction that was applied after all free inhabitants of the empire were made citizens in 212 AD.

Honestiores were members of the senatorial and equestrian orders, direct state functionaries including soldiers and (eventually) Christian priests and bishops and were the only people in the later empire who had the sort of rights Roman citizens had previously enjoyed.

Everyone else - including the wealthy landowners or curiales who ran the cities but who couldn't afford to buy a seat in the senate or a post in the bureaucracy - was a humilioris who as the name suggested had very few rights indeed outside of their own city or community.

IMTU 'Imperials' is used both formally to describe inhabitants of the Imperium and informally to describe nobles, officials and servicemen with imperial commissions and warrants.

Under Article I these will have a whole range of additional rights compared to ordinary citizens including rights to unimpeded free movement in carrying out their duties, rights to bear arms, rights to have certain types of legal cases heard directly by Imperial rather than local courts etc.

How far these rights extend and their interpretation is down to you - obviously a high noble has different rights than a service noble, an active officer more than a reserve NCO etc.

There may also be a whole raft of special legislation pertaining to particular planets (Red Zones for instance) qualifying these rights.

 

[rogermccarthy]

I do think there is a hang-up here about 'citizenship'.

For current Americans and Western Europeans 'citizenship' comes with a whole raft of associated baggage about equality, rights and freedoms.

These associations are however for the most part little more than a 200 years old and for most of the people living on planet earth now 'citizenship' means something much more limited and restrictive (if we were Chinese would we even be allowed to have this discussion?).

The Third Imperium is several orders of magnitude different to the 2006 USA or EU by pretty much every criterion you can possibly imagine.

So worrying about 'IMoJ interference' as if it is somehow analogous to current concerns about our own burgeoning security state rather misses the point .

The IMoJ is no more analagous to the FBI or Dept of Homeland Hecurity than Imperial citizens are to US or EU citizens.

The IMoJ is the agency of an interstellar empire encompassing 11,000 worlds and many different species and races separated by vast gulfs of time and distance.

Sure individual agents might well exceed their powers but a systematic imperium-wide threat to local autonomy is just something that is not going to happen (after all the 3rd Imperium has only to look at the 1st and probably 2nd Imperium to see exactly what eventually happens to an over-centralised and over-authoritarian interstellar state).

 

[Jame]

I would expect that while all Imperial worlds that are not directly under Imperial control can generally direct their own internal affairs, they have the Sword of Damocles hanging over them in the form of Imperial Intervention. What this means is that the Imperium reserves the right to assume direct rule of any given planet given certain circumstances, i.e. the mass institution of slavery of all Vargr or of all Humans would cause the Imperium to come in, dissolve the planetary government and install an Imperial government of some sort.

 

[kafka47]

Citizenship, within an Empire of which the Imperium is, has a very different meaning than being a citizen within a democracy or a republic. However, the Imperium is a hybrid creature, it takes from the past, as it has quite bluntly stated and built a new edifice. So, a way that I have looked at it IMTU…

There was a series of planets opt in the Imperial because a group of interests find that their interests are merged with the growing entity called the Third Imperium. The Sylan Federation was a highly centralized body which governed over a few worlds. Through war and diplomacy, they maintained their Federation. However, this confined them to a small number of worlds, especially, as they were surrounded by other powers. Defeating those powers, led them on the path to Empire and away from any notions of a republic or democracy. However, an Empire or more accurately an imperium does have distinct advantages.

The Imperium has the ability to redistribute resources of the whole in exchange for tribune and the maintenance of free trade between member-states. The tribune is used to pay for the resources of the whole. Naturally, as merchants find themselves able to get rich very quickly, with free trade. Notwithstanding, the merchants find themselves that free trade comes at the cost of conveying cargo only through Imperial agencies of the SPA and worlds protected via the Imperial Navy (often this task is subcontracted to various planetary navies who operate under the aegis of the Imperial Naval Command). The SPA does have the authority to tax but does so sparingly usually relying upon the volume of trade to pick up the slack. The Imperium also has a number of regulations that have to met, in doing so, further income is generated. All this income contributes to an ever increasing concentration of capital and also of redistribution back to improving infrastructure. Need a low interest loan, the Ministry of Finance would happily oblige, although, maybe it will offer its services through the world government…

And, lastly, the Imperium overlays a social structure for participation in Imperial Affairs, whereby all sophonts are grouped into classes which can perform different services for either their homeworld or the Imperium as a whole. These services that directly provide service for the Imperium then enrich the meaning of citizenship for those sophonts. Those that serve either those agencies within their homeworld’s domain or self-interest (i.e. Merchants) find themselves enjoying less rights.

However, once the obligations to the maintenance of the Imperium are met (support a common defence & pay tribune), individual worlds have right to determine how these citizens will behave on their homeworld, therefore, here are the real limits to Imperial citizenship. What the Imperium does do, it acts against the final court of last appeal for those who travel between the stars but it is just as willing to throw them to the wolves should it necessitate and facilitate local peace.

Hence the question of Imperial citizenship, is not a bundle of rights, Imperial citizenship is a collection of obligations in exchange for safety – therefore, feudalism.


Separation is generally not thought of, as the same ruling group of a particular world, also enjoys the privileges of enhanced Imperial citizenship. And, because, nobility can be awarded for merit, it keeps the lower order in line. Those who do not travel offworld would be inclined to think that there are no alternatives anyhow or they have a Panglossian vision. Furthermore, separation would be viewed as a threat to the safety of others, hence the Imperial Marines can be called in for regime change or diplomacy using Plasma Weapons with the troops would come Imperial Investment and hence calm any remaining passions…plus, it might be prudent to change the government code, giving in to some of the lower orders demand for change.

All other Interstellar Powers have different organizing principles which I cannot address.

 

[rogermccarthy]

Also important to remember that for want of a better expression the Imperium is a top-down rather than bottom-up state.

Authority derives not from any federal constitution where speciofied aspects of sovereignty are delgated upwards to central institutions by the member worlds but from the person of the Emperor himself who in his Warrant of Restoration permitted local autonomy 'except where such local law or custom is in conflict with imperial law'.

What one really needs to visualise is an active but resource-limited central state represented by the high nobility, navy, IISS etc engaged in a constantly changing and dynamic interaction with an almost endless variety of local governments.

IMTU the closer to the capital the more direct power central Imperial institutions will have and the more homogenous society will appear to outsiders, but by the time you get to the frontier the Imperium becomes an increasingly nebulous concept, with the high nobles being pretty much left to their own devices and the relationship between them and individual worlds being more about influence than control.

For instance I can't imagine high population world close to Capital routinely being allowed to devastate themselves in nuclear wars between balkanised states, but out in the marches precisely this happens on Wypoc and comes close to happening on Aramanx.

 

[Hal]

For what it is worth, when I asked the question about the rights of entry/exit from worlds - I specifically had EXIT VISA in mind. I also have a reason for asking it...

Sovereign rights is a prickly situation, and one that probably suffers a bit of a divergence in patterns of thought. What exactly IS sovereignity?

Let us take the definition of Visa from http://www.dictionary.com and see what the implications are from that word...

noun 1. an endorsement made by an authorized representative of one country upon a passport issued by another, permitting the passport holder entry into or transit through the country making the endorsement.

As can be seen by the above mentioned statement - a visa is a control that makes an effort to limit transit between one authority's control into/or out of anothers. That one could or even would inflict such a control on a citizen of an Imperial implies flat out, that there are two domains involved - that of the Imperial Domain, and that of the Planet's domain. What supports this is the fact of the Extrality line between the starport - which is by definition, an Imperial region/domain, and that of the world itself. But what I found interesting was a comment made earlier in this thread - that it is a formality designed to insure that bills are paid and that no crimes have been committed etc.

Why would any entity need to worry about those two issues if it can ask for someone to enforce the law against non-payment of bills and/or commission of crimes? That implies that you're concerned that the people escaping your jurisdiction can escape justice (so to speak) by leaving your jurisdiction. For example, if a man commits a crime on planet A, and Planet B is obligated by Imperial Treaty to remand the miscreant over to the custody of planet A - all is well and good right? But what happens if the laws of planet A conflict with Planet B, and in fact, planet B intends to circumvent the enforcement of laws they consider "unjust" by writing laws of their own that state anyone who commits an act that is legal on planet B but is considered to be illegal on planet A - has not committed a crime and is to be given sanctuary against any law enforcement of unjust laws from planet A.

Now what do you do?

From the reading I've done on the internet about current events, there is a law being enforced in the European Union that states that laws created in one nation have to be treated such that a person who breaks those laws in another nation, must be surrendered to the other member nation's court system. More specifically? A man made a statement during a taped lecture for his own students, that was placed on the internet regarding events of World War II. That lecture was then seen in a nation where his act was officially against the law. The nation sued to have that man in England, remanded to their custody for breaking a law he himself did not commit in their territory, nor did he authorize the tape to be disseminated elsewhere. I've not followed that incident as it wasn't maintained as an ongoing issue of interest for the blog in question (Note: this is an anectedote that I can't substantiate specifically, but it does point out the difficulty I am pointing to in the Traveller Imperium)

So, what precisely is that odd beast known as "sovereignity"? Some people want to define it as the rights or actions that cannot be infringed upon by another state. Certain "Rights" we used to recognize by the Treaty of Westphalia (sp?) such as a nation state's right to go to war, to enact and enforce its own laws and customs, etc - would appear to be what we think of when we think of Sovereignity no?

Question: can an Imperial State (planetary government) go to war with another Imperial State?

Question: can a single Imperial state create a law that is not enforceable in another Imeperial State?

Question: Can an Imperial State deprive a citizen of its life, liberty, and property that is in defiance of another, or contradictory to another's?

If you have to answer "yes" to any of those questions, then you have to also ask "What exactly does the word subject or citizen mean when talking about Imperial laws and/or rights?" Put another way? If the rights of an Imperial citizens supercedes the rights of a planetary entity or even national entity in the case of balkinized worlds - such rights superceded all other government forms such that a uniformity of law exists on ALL member worlds. The moment it can be proven that such a uniformity of law does not exist - and the Imperium tolerates this, it is proven that Imperial rights do not neccessarily supercede Planetary/regional rights.

And here lies the key to the entire argument about sovereign rights:

If the Imperium will not step in to violate planetary governmental rights or regional national rights (on balkinized worlds) - be it from lack of desire to intercede, or a custom not to intercede, or an outright treaty obligation and a self-imposed ban on intercession, is not the Imperium conferring soveriegn rights upon such planetary/national recognized entities?

 

[Hal]

I'd like to respond to a point by point listing of the Warrant and see what people think on each of the issues raised...

Originally posted by alte:

Article I - 'the Imperium considers as citizens any recognised sentient creature native or naturalised by a member world of the Imperium...No immunity, protection, right, or privilege granted by the Imperium to a citizen may be abridged or denied by any member world'

There is the issue involved here in that one has to wonder what exactly was the intent to use the phrase "citizen". Also, there is no specific mention of what exactly are the rights or priveledges or protections in and of themselves. Either this is wiggle room for the GM or it is a semantical error along the lines of the difference between Imperial Citizens and World Citizens much along the lines of Roman subject and Roman Citizen. Subject and Citizens are not the same word although they have a closeness in meaning that can be confused. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, were those born in England English Citizens, or were they English Subjects?

Originally posted by alte:

Articles II-III deal with the Imperial succession, nobility and Moot.

Articles II & III seem to be dealing with the Soveriegn rights that the Imperium takes for its own. It almost seems as though through these articles, that the Imperium is setting forth the rules by which it is run and will abide by.

Originally posted by alte:

Article IV supports free trade (but apparently only in the negative sense of forbidding piracy and smuggling - tariffs and outright bans on imports and exports don't rate a mention).

Oddly enough? One might consider that this article is intended to say "Hey, we don't care about reserving this sovereign right to ourselves, and anything we don't mention is the domain of each individual world's government (Sovereign).

Originally posted by alte:

Article V standardises calendar, currency and measurements

Just as Rome had to standardize certain things and aspects in order to make its subjects ROMAN, so too did the Imperium need to standardize certain aspects amongst its subject "nations" and/or Planets. One would have thought too, that there would have been an attempt to standardize LAWS as well - but this has not been the case. Put another way? If the laws enacted by a planet needed to be ratified by the Imperial Moot or the Emperor, then you could say that they are derived from the Emperor's authority. In practice, it is likely that some beaurocrat (sp?) between the planetary governments would rubber stamp the common every day stuff - but such an entity would be given a code of standards to apply in judgement so he knew which laws the Emperor himself would want to see personally before affixing his stamp of approval upon it. Instead however, each world is entitled to make its own laws providing they do not contravene those set forth by the Emperor.

Originally posted by alte:

Article VI prohibits slavery

This is ONE item that is uniform throughout all of the Imperium. No member world may violate this uniform law. This is what I refer to as a "romanizing" effect of the Imperium's laws being superceding against the local laws.

Originally posted by alte:

Article VII defines the extra-territoriality of designated Imperial possessions

Why is this article even neccessary? If ALL lands/locations within the Imperium are Imperial, and the Imperial government supercedes all other lesser governments within its territory, then it wouldn't even need to define any level of territoriality at all. It would be part of the Imperial Sovereign rights to just say "We define this thus, when we want to define it thus, and can change it any time we want". Clearly, the definition of such territoriality is neccessary to show where the planet/region owns sovereign rights over or against Imperial Sovereign rights. Boundaries are necessary only to delineate what belongs where.

Originally posted by alte:

Article VIII reserves the power to unilaterally enact changes in any or all aspects of the relationship between itself and any member world or citizen.

And herein lies the true statement of "Imperial Supremecy". The Imperium reserves the right to itself, to change things as it sees fit. However, as any sociologist will mention, there are written laws and then there are unwritten laws (customs) that control the actions of any given person or group of persons. What would happen if the Emperor enacted changes that were unpopular or even threatened what many worlds consider their "inalienable rights"? What if by means of this "surpremecy", lords and nobles of the Imperium begin their slide down the road of corruption to the point where member worlds no longer have the right to enact their own laws without approval from a Noble? What if the religious beliefs of one world is violated or insulted or even outlawed by the Imperial Nobles? In each instance, if it happens once or twice, that might be a case of "Hey, it happened to some other guy I don't even care about" and it gets no reaction other than a yawn. In other instances however, one could see where World Leaders discover that the yoke of Imperial might is too onerous and a rebellion is initiated.

Each GM's viewpoint on the Imperium makes it a "In My Traveller Universe" event making it diverge from OTU "reality" in some subtle manner. But only because - Marc Miller is the one who determines what is or is not Canon <g>. In addition, human's being imperfect creatures rather than GODS, can and will make mistakes where elements will contradict each other even in Canon.

Back to the issue of Sovereign rights. In Traveller Canon, worlds are permitted to go to war against each other providing that their war does not unduely hamper free trade. Wars of destruction against a broad civilian base will cause the Imperium to announce "You've violated the Imperial laws of war and are now facing Imperial Intervention" Traveller canon also states that Imperial Intervention has not be rigidly codified precisely so that they can leave it up to the judgement of the Imperial Powers that be, when they can intervene.

All things considered? I can see Traveller's Universe in the lens of two possibilities:

A rigid uniform culture and system of laws that apply to all members regardless of status on their own worlds

A loose confederate culture and system of laws that are few in number and not uniform across the board, allowing member worlds to pick their own poison (so to speak) as to what laws they will enact and enforce. Each world however, must acknowledge the Imperial overlords (a subculture to be sure!) as their masters and obey their dictates. (which I might add, includes paying a tribute or a tax).

 

[Hal]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
I don't get emigration from "touring," so I'd have to say that it had nothing to do with emigration and immigration - unless you have another post you want to reference?

As it turns out, I asked the question in that manner precisely to evoke debate on the topic. It is one thing to examine something specifically stated within a game world construct. It is another thing however, to make a statement without looking at its ramifications further down the road. For example, as was mentioned by flykiller - how can you demand control over non-citizens if you don't already have such control over your own citizens? That is an implication right there. Secondly? Suppose you commit a crime in one nation as a citizen of your own nation, and seek to exit your one nation to get to the safer haven? Case in point? The Emmigration of draft dodgers from the United States into Canada. The US initated a law stating that all eligible males of a certain age must submit to the draft (conscription). Some didn't like that law, and tried to escape it by finding refuge elsewhere. To do so, they needed to find a refuge where the laws of the United States did not apply, and where the nation in question would not hand them over to American Authorities at the request of said authorities. Control over one's own citizens is also required just for that example above. I'm sure you can think of others.

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by Hal:
-clip- What supports this is the fact of the Extrality line between the starport - which is by definition, an Imperial region/domain, and that of the world itself. But what I found interesting was a comment made earlier in this thread - that it is a formality designed to insure that bills are paid and that no crimes have been committed etc.

Why would any entity need to worry about those two issues if it can ask for someone to enforce the law against non-payment of bills and/or commission of crimes? That implies that you're concerned that the people escaping your jurisdiction can escape justice (so to speak) by leaving your jurisdiction. For example, if a man commits a crime on planet A, and Planet B is obligated by Imperial Treaty to remand the miscreant over to the custody of planet A - all is well and good right? -clip-

In general I agree with your assumption that the extrality line being there to prevent criminals and debt holders from skipping out implies a degree of soveriegnty. I also liked the complicating scenario's you listed.

For the sake of argument however let's assume the 3I is one big happy homogeneous family of worlds. Wouldn't an extrality line still be needed simply because of the implications of 10,000 plus worlds separated by weeks, months, and in some cases years of travel time? Let's say Joe Scumbag commits a crime, knows the local police are on to him so he hightails it to the starport to hop an outbound freighter. Where do the extradition papers go? Tracing this guy gets more and more difficult with each jump he makes - particularly if he can switch IDs once or twice in the process. Wouldn't catching him before he gets off world be a prudent measure?

 

[kafka47]

Yes, every Referee will have their own Traveller Universe but when I create mine, I try to keep as close as I can to what is the OTU.

To your questions...

Question: can an Imperial State (planetary government) go to war with another Imperial State?

As these are not states in the proper sense of Westphilian entities but worlds. There could be isolated small wars between rival governments. Imperial institutions are there to see that things don't get out of hand. Hence, also the widespread use of Mercs to fight proxy wars over conflicts of interests. Wars would be fought over a single agreed upon objective and done often in secret and then a treaty hemmed out later. Naturally, on the frontiers, these are much looser conventions, as the worlds may not be claimed by the Imperium but "colonies" from a starting world.

Question: can a single Imperial state create a law that is not enforceable in another Imeperial State?

Again only in the case of colony worlds. The Imperium would want to encourage settlement or discourage settlement. Ultimately, it is Imperial Institutions who decide who goes where and this is done through a process of intiating colonization or allowing a colony world to founded (usually the most inhospitable barren rocks who will call upon Imperial help).

Question: Can an Imperial State deprive a citizen of its life, liberty, and property that is in defiance of another, or contradictory to another's?

Yes, because almost all laws regarding that are local. The world's government has that right. Again, using the Imperium as a Court of Final Appeal, a citizen of one durisdiction may request a hearing from Imperial authorities to way in. Here a test may be applied against Imperial Law, if it is consistant with a violation against Imperial Law ie Murder, then the local authorities can impose whatever sentence they see fit.

So worlds are not truly sovereign (which is the Westphalian understanding) in the sense that you took from the dictionary but interconnected through the rubric of Empire. Ironically, perhaps the world we beginning to live in now (post-Westphilian) is serving as model for governance that the Imperium exercises.

There is the issue involved here in that one has to wonder what exactly was the intent to use the phrase "citizen". Also, there is no specific mention of what exactly are the rights or priveledges or protections in and of themselves. Either this is wiggle room for the GM or it is a semantical error along the lines of the difference between Imperial Citizens and World Citizens much along the lines of Roman subject and Roman Citizen. Subject and Citizens are not the same word although they have a closeness in meaning that can be confused. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, were those born in England English Citizens, or were they English Subjects?

The Imperium uses the term citizens but what they mean in substance is subjects.

Articles II & III seem to be dealing with the Soveriegn rights that the Imperium takes for its own. It almost seems as though through these articles, that the Imperium is setting forth the rules by which it is run and will abide by.

That is the layering of a social structure that I eluded to in my original post. It also sets up some guidelines as a code of conduct as it sets a hierarchy of subjects and how authority is dealt with.

Why is this article even neccessary? If ALL lands/locations within the Imperium are Imperial, and the Imperial government supercedes all other lesser governments within its territory, then it wouldn't even need to define any level of territoriality at all. It would be part of the Imperial Sovereign rights to just say "We define this thus, when we want to define it thus, and can change it any time we want". Clearly, the definition of such territoriality is neccessary to show where the planet/region owns sovereign rights over or against Imperial Sovereign rights. Boundaries are necessary only to delineate what belongs where.

This is basically the excuse to create fiefs, military bases and starports in whatever part of the system they see fit.

Oddly enough? One might consider that this article is intended to say "Hey, we don't care about reserving this sovereign right to ourselves, and anything we don't mention is the domain of each individual world's government (Sovereign).

You said it better and I am in complete agreement.

Just as Rome had to standardize certain things and aspects in order to make its subjects ROMAN, so too did the Imperium need to standardize certain aspects amongst its subject "nations" and/or Planets. One would have thought too, that there would have been an attempt to standardize LAWS as well - but this has not been the case. Put another way? If the laws enacted by a planet needed to be ratified by the Imperial Moot or the Emperor, then you could say that they are derived from the Emperor's authority. In practice, it is likely that some beaurocrat (sp?) between the planetary governments would rubber stamp the common every day stuff - but such an entity would be given a code of standards to apply in judgement so he knew which laws the Emperor himself would want to see personally before affixing his stamp of approval upon it. Instead however, each world is entitled to make its own laws providing they do not contravene those set forth by the Emperor.

I agree with pretty well everything thing here. Just two cavets. Regulations were also set up to assure the dominance of Sylean corporation (the later Megacorps) and also to ensure standards ie a toaster build on Regina would not blow up on Terra. Useful especially when you are hunting for FGMP parts...

This is ONE item that is uniform throughout all of the Imperium. No member world may violate this uniform law. This is what I refer to as a "romanizing" effect of the Imperium's laws being superceding against the local laws.

The abolishing of slavery also ensures that there can be no rivals to the Imperium by claiming ownership over its greatest assets - its people. In addition, sets out a moral & ethical stance that would draw people to the Imperium.

 

[Hal]

Originally posted by SGB aka Newbee:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hal:
-clip- What supports this is the fact of the Extrality line between the starport - which is by definition, an Imperial region/domain, and that of the world itself. But what I found interesting was a comment made earlier in this thread - that it is a formality designed to insure that bills are paid and that no crimes have been committed etc.

Why would any entity need to worry about those two issues if it can ask for someone to enforce the law against non-payment of bills and/or commission of crimes? That implies that you're concerned that the people escaping your jurisdiction can escape justice (so to speak) by leaving your jurisdiction. For example, if a man commits a crime on planet A, and Planet B is obligated by Imperial Treaty to remand the miscreant over to the custody of planet A - all is well and good right? -clip-

In general I agree with your assumption that the extrality line being there to prevent criminals and debt holders from skipping out implies a degree of soveriegnty. I also liked the complicating scenario's you listed.

For the sake of argument however let's assume the 3I is one big happy homogeneous family of worlds. Wouldn't an extrality line still be needed simply because of the implications of 10,000 plus worlds separated by weeks, months, and in some cases years of travel time? Let's say Joe Scumbag commits a crime, knows the local police are on to him so he hightails it to the starport to hop an outbound freighter. Where do the extradition papers go? Tracing this guy gets more and more difficult with each jump he makes - particularly if he can switch IDs once or twice in the process. Wouldn't catching him before he gets off world be a prudent measure? </font>[/QUOTE]So why not make it a security zone instead of an extrality zone? You can't get past the security zone until you pass security checks. These aren't VISA checks because you're a citizen of the world itself. Of course, if you end up on someone else's world - they may wonder why you don't have a valid visa no?

Remember, a Visa by definition is authorization to enter a region which the issuing authorities have control over. An exit visa would appear by definition, to be a set of papers authorizing you to leave a world for which you had a visa to enter earlier.

 

[kafka47]

The externality line is where the Imperium has the right to dictate the law and thereby influence local law. A security zone is just to keep the two separate. The Imperium wants the situation to be like West Berlin...deep in the territory of DDR but not subject to the DDR's restrictions.

 

[Hal]

In reading Kafka's response, I sort of got lost and am asking for clarifications:

Re: can worlds go to war.
It seems that the answer is yes - so clarification answer is yes?

Re: whether or not a world can make laws that are unenforcable on other worlds - I got lost in that one and need clarification. Clarifying question: can for example, a world make it a crime punishable by death, anyone who criticizes or mocks the religious head of faith (such as a pope?) Would another world in the Imperium be required to put to death, or offer up their own world's citizen who did in fact, mock a pope?

***EDIT***
By the by Kafta - this isn't to make you feel badly about what you wrote or how you wrote it. I know only too well that I may have one set of thoughts in mind when I type a passage or paragraph, only to see that what I wrote didn't impact on one of the readers precisely as I had intended. So, for what it is worth, I'm assuming that I'm too dense to understand precisely what you mean

 

[Hal]

Originally posted by kafka47:
The externality line is where the Imperium has the right to dictate the law and thereby influence local law. A security zone is just to keep the two separate. The Imperium wants the situation to be like West Berlin...deep in the territory of DDR but not subject to the DDR's restrictions.

Um, now I'm confused. If the Starport's territory is considered to be Imperial Territory outright. Once you cross that line, you're now considered to be on the property of the world's government. Just as the Berlin wall was created to keep easy access to the other zone to a minimum, so too would a security zone. Once you cross from one zone to the other - the local laws no longer apply. An extrality line is nothing more than a boundary if you will. Just as there is some line that delineates United States soil from Canadian Soil, so too is there a line between what the Imperium says is the starport and thus Imperial territory, and the host world's territory.

 

[kafka47]

Hal, no problem, just did not have time to do the proper edit job that I might do, say, if I were at home...

And, to answer your question...yes, two worlds can go to war against one another. But, as they do not want to really involve the Imperium to meddle in their affairs, they hire Mercs for specific jobs. ie. A mining concern has just been "nationalized" by another world. Mercs would be hired to get the nationals out, plant evidence that the claim should be returned or proper compensation be paid and provide security for the new "technical advisors".

A security zone for me, is nothing more than what is offered at airports. You have the right of transit, limited commerce (duty free) and possibly accomodation (travel hostel at Heathrow). Now, if we are dealing with something like a Starport that would be considerably larger than an airport more akin to a small city in its own right, it would take on possibly characteristics of an Export Processing Zone or West Berlin. Remember, the West did not want the wall but still had interfaces with the East that they had to abide by.

 

[Icosahedron]

I see an entry and exit visa as being the same document. (IMTU, anyway) If a visitor is allowed to enter a world, he has an inalienable right to leave it - unless he commits a crime whilst there.

If such a crime is committed he has the right of appeal to the local Imperial representative, who will have guidelines available and will decide whether there is a case to be answered. In the case of murder, the Imp Rep will probably leave the traveller to face local justice, (provided it is seen to be 'just') but in the case of 'picking your nose in public', the Imp Rep will quietly escort the traveller off world to somewhere more sensible. As such, the Imperium has ultimate jurisdiction over travellers.

Residents of the world, however, are largely subject to local laws. They, too, will have a right of appeal to an Imp Rep, but only in serious cases. In this way, certain laws may be effectively unenforceable on a world, as they will be countermanded automatically by the Imperium (if cases come to the attention of the Imperium). In this way, the laws of the Imperial worlds gradually become homogenised and worlds lying closer to the core will have very similar frameworks, these becoming effectively the yardstick by which the laws of 'rogue states' may be measured.
The Extrality Line would define where local law and Central Law meet.

Effectively, there would be three legal frameworks: Imperial Law, which applies to all occupants of the Imperium, Central Law, which is the generally recognised yardstick of what 'should be', and local law, which is enforceable if its divergence from Central Law doesn't cause the Imperial representatives too many problems. Naturally, applying local law to visitors will stir up more trouble than applying it to residents.

Nothing to do with canon or Citizenship, but how does that sound?

 

[flykiller]

Central Law, which is the generally recognised yardstick of what 'should be'

sounds like a lot of work. this would put the imperium in the business of nation-building and squarely at odds with the majority of its member worlds, and that's a lot of hostile territory to hold. like the U.S. in Iraq times 11,000.

 

[aramis]

The intertwining of entry and exit visas is a western idea.

Russian and later soviet internal passports required an exit visa from the region left and an entry visa from the region entered.

 

[travlar]

I think that most places will let people (especially those making a temporary stay) come and go pretty unrestricted, even if just to keep from getting a red or amber zone classification.