Extraterritoriality, How far does it go? Options

[Moomin]

Do subsidiary corps of the AAA Megas get extraterritoriality aswell?

[Ol' Scratch]

I'm not entirely sure.

However, this is one of the major things I've changed in my own games. There is no such thing as corporate extraterritorial laws; I think it was one of the most suspension-of-disbelief bending things they've done in Shadowrun, and that's saying a lot considering magic, metahumans, and the amazing physics of the Sixth World.

There's just no way a First World country would have given up extraterritorial rights to a corporation (let alone every other county mysteriously following suit). Lobbyists wouldn't have helped, as no sane political figure would voluntarily give up their ability to hold power over a corporation or industry by effectively removing their ability to do so.

The Shiawase Decision (is that what it was called? I can't remember) should have simply been changed to allow corporations to defend their own property from hostile non-government, non-law enforcement attacks; meaning shadowrunners and other corporations primarily. Extraterritory was just a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, BAD idea.

[Backgammon]

Governements where nothing at the time. The corps where in a position to disolve governements, had they wanted to. So getting their own laws is no biggie. Still, it is a swoop of fiction and I can't argue with you if you don't buy it.

And to try to answer your question Moomin, I asked the same question some time ago, and no one could come up with a clear question. 100% owned subsidiaries are obviously free to put up the extraterritorial sign. But what about 60%? 40%, 30%? 10%?

I'd go with the following that any majorly owned (50%+1) corporation has the possibility of claiming extraterritoriality in the name of the majorly owning megacorp. Remember though, that to do that you have to publicly avow being owned by said umbrella megacorp, which is not something you necessarely want.

[Birdy]

I go with Funkenstein here. NO!!! Exterritorial Corps. Why?


Maybe the US was down at the time but in the ADL i.E. there was a military dictatorship! when they did the crap (Passau Treaties). And even a down-and-out nation still has an army. It don't takte that many tanks to nicely dispose of Mr. Corp-Pig and the asshole-gang!

So if the fat pigs at Ares fucked up as always and don't want to investigate, they`ll have to do it like they do today - buy your politico.

If the airwasters at Atztec want to keep their proletarians enslaved, they`ll do it the old fashioned american way and pay them in corp-script in the style of "The grapes of wrath"

And so on...

Sure, they can have armed sec-guards on "their" installations like Orwells pigs had their dogs. But only if the nation allows that (most actually do) and only within legal limits.

Michael

[Corywn]

[Synner]

The conditions that need apply for corps and their subsidiaries to be able to invoke extraterritorial rights are covered in Corp Download (and Corp Shadowfiles for those who own it). Basically a subsidiary has to be wholly owned and be clearly identified as such (ie. GE, a Ares Macrotechnologies company).

Regarding the extraterritoriality issue:

Only [edit]Triple A and AA corps are extraterritorial and what extraterritoriality implies has been greatly overblown. To name just a few common misconceptions:

• Extraterritorial corps don't pay taxes - No such thing, where they don't pay them on financial profits, they pay tarriffs and customs taxes from moving their products from their extraterritorial facilities to stores in "neighboring" nations.
  
• Extraterritorial citizenship grant's immunity from arrest or prosecution - Another gross mistake. Someone has citizenship mixed it up with diplomatic immunity. A corporate citizen is no more immune to prosecution in the UCAS than an American is if commits a crime in Spain. Yes, there might be an equivalent of DI for high-ranking execs but it's never been mentioned.
  
• Extraterritoriality implies total jurisdiction over corporate citizens - technically not true since you'd have to have both extraterritoriality AND corporate law enforcement and a corporate judicial system. While major corps can afford to have this not all will, in which case local law will probably be in effect.

In fact, governments just sign away parcels of land which become the sovereign territories of corps (subject to their laws), which in turn is actually a pretty profitable venture; not only do you make money from selling the land to the corp in the first place but you also make money by keeping control of the surrounding infrastructure and maintaining utilities and transportation routes. In this respect you can think of corporate facilities as glorified embassies.

The whole issue of extraterritoriality in fact has very little to do sovereignty or law and all to do with economics. Governments don't really care if they alienate their rights over a small piece of land if it cuts back on national debt and brings in much needed money (as would be the case of the ADL if stability went the way of the dodo and the economy was needing a serious boost). Especially when countries realise their control of megacorps is bogus and unenforceable.

In fact people who have been watching the EU and American legislation recently may have noted that this whole issue is by no means as fantastic as it might seem at first sight.

[spotlite]

[Synner]

[spotlite]

blah! All cylinders firing on 'what the frag is fuel?'!!!!

Sorry Sinner. Sorry Sphynx.

[Synner]

[Spookymonster]

[Nath]

[Ol' Scratch]

Rationalize it as you like, but even if the United States Supreme Court judges were all taking some serious drugs at the time (I don't see how the Shiawase Decision has much to do with the Constitution to begin with), why would practically every other country the world over spontaneously do the same thing, slight disparities or not? I just find it too much to buy.

"Let's give up many of our soveriegn rights to any company with enough cash to buy some of our land, woot!" I don't think so.

[hobgoblin]

a extrateritorial corp dont need the full legal stack tha we have inmore democratic contrys, i see them more of feudal systems where the person on top of the corporate ladder in a given area have the final yes/no say unless overruled by someone higher up and the ceo is "under control" by the board of directors.

so if someone gets shot on the grounds then its the local managers problem to clean up and if he does not do so then it his head on the block.

sure the ucas or other bordering contry can complain but if the area was clearly borderd off (fences and so on) then there is realy nothing they can do, one less load of theyre shoulders. and who complains if its a sinless nonvoter?

and i think that was the real reason for the shiawase stuff. it was a corps standing army that made a mess and the court said that it wasnt a usa (at the time i think) problem, indirectly saying that corps can do whatever they want on theyre ground as long as they can field a army to hold it. stranger "laws/ruleings" have been past when they didnt watch what words they used. just do a google for strange/stupid laws. hell, just look at the areas the dmca is tested right now.

this meant less to do for the overworked police and army at that point to.

and i fear like synner hinted at that we are getting a kind of feudal capitalism lately. didnt they report that riaa trys to get media corps carte blanc(sp?) from antitrust laws these days?

[Synner]

[Siege]

Well, the concept of a corp possessing extraterritoriality makes the "nasty, evil corp" just that much scarier to players.

-Siege

[spotlite]

[Ol' Scratch]

[Dende]

In my mind, extraterritorial corps came around the way some might soon...sure labor in malaysa is cheap, but how about in international waters where no country's laws apply..that way you avoid all but import taxes. Countries in order to keep business within themselves began to allow for Corps to have some more freedom, large Corp business is pretty much all that is left in SR, if you as a country lose all your corps, you have NOTHING left money wise, and fall prey to the first that comes along.
For their mere survival I see extraterritorial corps being left to do as they please with clauses of staying in country. This is why so many Japanese people hate...shoot name gone...the one that left to Moscow, they took so much business it couldn't have been good...for business, nor for the continuation of Japan as a nation.
What I think a lot of people are missing out on is the sheer monetary aspect of what megaCorps would do to the economy. SR may not have done it perfectly, but according to some sound principles of ecomonics it works.

[Ol' Scratch]

And if corporations started pulling out of countries, they lose revenue. In other words, corporations don't pull out of countries... and governments know that. Especially major governments that have people who buy a large majority of their products like, say, the United States.

[Synner]

In which cases they resort to other underhanded means like courting, buying, pressuring and blackmailing a majority among the Supreme Court Judges when an appropriate ruling comes up...

[Ol' Scratch]

Can someone please refresh me on the details of the Shiawase Decision? Namely, what did it have to do whatsoever with the Constitution and thus the Supreme Court? I don't remember a single ammendment saying anything along the lines of "Thou shalt have extraterritorial rights so as to defend yourself from all intrustions, including our own government, because we don't like to govern and pray for the day England will hold an iron fist over us again. Because without extraterritorial rights, you have no way to defend yourself. Yessir. No way whatsoever."

But maybe I'm just a little fuzzy on all of 'em. :) (I'm pretty sure it's not covered by the 2nd Amendment, too.) At best, a corporation is treated as an individual citizen... and I'm pretty sure that the government doesn't give every individual citizen extraterritorial rights just so they can kill and murder anyone they wish, no questions asked and immunity to prosecution, who trespasses on their property.

[Nath]

[Nath]

[Ol' Scratch]

I never debated that it wasn't a Supreme Court ruling. I just want to know what the case was.

Allowing a corporation or individual to have extraterritorial rights just by saying their "wholly owned" (which I also don't see as meaning jack squat to the government) are not covered by the current laws as far as I know, nor is there any chance that they would come into being as a law (the RIAA can't even get Congress, let alone the Supreme Court, to let them defend their copyrights the way they want to, yet we're to believe they give up their sovereign rights at the drop of a hat?), so it has to be a new law. The Supreme Court has no power to create laws; they only get to interpret them, and even then they can be overruled by Congress and the President in many cases, as long as the law doesn't infringe on their respective branch of government.

And even if they couldn't, Congress could simply make a new ammendment to the Constitution saying "Corporations shall not have the right to extraterritorial priviledges" or what have you.

At least that's what I remember from my social studies classes about a decade ago. I admit I slept through most of my classes, but I'm pretty sure I'm at least close to being right.