Extraterritoriality and Verisimilitude, Because Shadowrun players all love poli-sci and poli-econ Options

[Koekepan]

I'm all for it! Here is something to get you all started, a draft from my current writings:

It was late 2010, with famine stalking the globe, wars turning nastier than ever before, and VITAS still raging everywhere. The nation of Angola has, or had, an exclave a bit to the north along the west coast of Africa, called Cabinda. Cabinda was turbulent as a tornado, with a strong separatist movement and all sorts of trouble, both internally and from bordering states. Cabinda was also blessed (or cursed) with abundant offshore oil. The government of Angola desperately needed the oil because otherwise how were they going to finance holding their country together, and they desperately needed peace in Cabinda, because otherwise how were they going to get the oil? Enter the Pantexan Corporation, once an oil corporation but now heavily diversified. They made the government an offer: Pantexan would run the oil rigs, manage the shipment, pay a handsome fee for the privilege, and also guarantee the policing and securing of Cabinda. All they wanted was one thing: extraterritoriality in jurisdictional terms around the harbour of Cabinda, and extraterritorial privileges for their key personnel.

These days we can tell a deal with the devil when we see one, but Angola was desperate, and like a drowning man clutching at the life preserver they didn't stop to see that it wasn't covered in leeches. The funny thing is that at the time, it looked great. Pantexan were as good as their word, they kept that oil flowing (which was quite an achievement), they paid their fees like champs, and they brought in some competent muscle to knock heads until people figured out that compliance was the better option. Rumour has it that a lot of their experts were old south african military, but I don't see that it matters. Pantexan were the heroes of the day, and for years after Angola did not come to regret their decision. Pantexan even were smart enough to guard food shipments and markets with their own guards. People want to riot a lot less when they have full bellies and they watched when that thug down the street just got tied to a lamppost and beaten with a bicycle inner tube.

You know what's worse than a bad idea? A bad idea that catches on. Pretty soon some big corporations worldwide were offering to solve all sorts of problems, if they could just have a bite at the apple of extraterritoriality. They weren't turned down a whole lot, partly because they were smart enough to offer the deal to the desperate and corrupt. But I'm getting ahead of myself again, because the problems were just ramping up.

[Wounded Ronin]

I'm all for it! Here is something to get you all started, a draft from my current writings:

It was late 2010, with famine stalking the globe, wars turning nastier than ever before, and VITAS still raging everywhere. The nation of Angola has, or had, an exclave a bit to the north along the west coast of Africa, called Cabinda. Cabinda was turbulent as a tornado, with a strong separatist movement and all sorts of trouble, both internally and from bordering states. Cabinda was also blessed (or cursed) with abundant offshore oil. The government of Angola desperately needed the oil because otherwise how were they going to finance holding their country together, and they desperately needed peace in Cabinda, because otherwise how were they going to get the oil? Enter the Pantexan Corporation, once an oil corporation but now heavily diversified. They made the government an offer: Pantexan would run the oil rigs, manage the shipment, pay a handsome fee for the privilege, and also guarantee the policing and securing of Cabinda. All they wanted was one thing: extraterritoriality in jurisdictional terms around the harbour of Cabinda, and extraterritorial privileges for their key personnel.

These days we can tell a deal with the devil when we see one, but Angola was desperate, and like a drowning man clutching at the life preserver they didn't stop to see that it wasn't covered in leeches. The funny thing is that at the time, it looked great. Pantexan were as good as their word, they kept that oil flowing (which was quite an achievement), they paid their fees like champs, and they brought in some competent muscle to knock heads until people figured out that compliance was the better option. Rumour has it that a lot of their experts were old south african military, but I don't see that it matters. Pantexan were the heroes of the day, and for years after Angola did not come to regret their decision. Pantexan even were smart enough to guard food shipments and markets with their own guards. People want to riot a lot less when they have full bellies and they watched when that thug down the street just got tied to a lamppost and beaten with a bicycle inner tube.

You know what's worse than a bad idea? A bad idea that catches on. Pretty soon some big corporations worldwide were offering to solve all sorts of problems, if they could just have a bite at the apple of extraterritoriality. They weren't turned down a whole lot, partly because they were smart enough to offer the deal to the desperate and corrupt. But I'm getting ahead of myself again, because the problems were just ramping up.

Good writing.

So thinking about this I guess there are three sort of components:

1.) Governments have to be weak to the point of losing legitimacy

2.) The egomaniacs that usually populate corrupt governments have to feel so desperate that they not only accept kickbacks and back the corporations, but they have to be willing to make the symbolic step of granting extraterritoriality, which is psychologically hard for an egomaniac to do.

3.) Down the road, when conditions have stabilized and the government egomaniacs want to feel respected again, they need to have found that they have neither the respect nor the resources to really command anyone anymore, because most people owe their jobs and their financial security to an extraterritorial corporation.

[Koekepan]

Good writing.

So thinking about this I guess there are three sort of components:

1.) Governments have to be weak to the point of losing legitimacy

2.) The egomaniacs that usually populate corrupt governments have to feel so desperate that they not only accept kickbacks and back the corporations, but they have to be willing to make the symbolic step of granting extraterritoriality, which is psychologically hard for an egomaniac to do.

3.) Down the road, when conditions have stabilized and the government egomaniacs want to feel respected again, they need to have found that they have neither the respect nor the resources to really command anyone anymore, because most people owe their jobs and their financial security to an extraterritorial corporation.

Yes, although if you have the right kind of kleptocrat, as long as the money comes in they'll lease their whole country and collect the fees without a moment's hesitation. The corporation's Mephistopheles just has to point out that governance is hard, and depositing money in the bank is oh so easy and feels oh so good. Of course, the fact that the kleptocrat has the excuse that some place is basically ungovernable just sweetens the pot.

I've also written a bit about how the UCAS got in on the action:

By this time, extraterritoriality deals were starting to affect the so-called rich world, including the CAS and UCAS. Siemens Ecomonitor got the nod to take a long term lease on a section of South Caroline beachfront that had been ruined by a tanker full of toxic chemicals being pushed aground by a sudden hurricane, courtesy of Daniel Howling Coyote and the Great Ghost Dance. Siemens (the parent company) got the extraterritoriality deal, and bought a 999 year lease on five hundred acres of land, then started to clean it up and build on it. They did right on their end of the deal, but they didn't do it out of the goodness of their twisted little hearts. They made it a showcase piece, and got incredible press on how gorgeously pristine it was, and how their five star hotel was a magnificent, and environmentally responsible way of dealing with what had once been a blight. Since the good citizens of the CAS were only too happy to blame the wicked injuns for the blighted area, Siemens came out smelling of roses, and even some pretty conservative governments were willing to give this corporate extraterritoriality thing a try.

[Nath]

It depends if you intend on rewriting the Shadowrun setting as a whole, or only Shadowrun history, with the goal of reaching a similar or identical setting in the 2050-2070 bracket. In the former case, you have to ask yourself if corporate extraterritoriality really is a desirable thing.

The point of the setting is to write stories that take place inside it. I'm not sure there are many plot elements that require corporate extraterritoriality to be part of the setting.
Security guards with shooting to kill with military-grade weapons? Barely an extension of the "stand-your-ground" principle. Actual corporate military forces? Ask Blackwater. The CEO getting away with whatever crimes and evil experiments the corporate committed? Corrupt officials and scapegoats will do it. The only story that strikes me as hard (or at least harder) to tell in a setting without corporate extraterritoriality is the dumped corporate employee losing his legal identity along with his job.

That works at least for the US and Third World countries. Other countries in the setting, from Europe to Japan, might rely on corporate extraterritoriality to justify having automatic weapons and heavy firefight.

The existence of corporate extraterritoriality also makes some stories difficult if not impossible to tell. Stories that involve a public scandal or the threat of it makes no sense when law does not apply to corporations and brainwashed consumers is an even more central element of the setting. Which is actually one big issue for a RPG whose premise involve protagonists who are supposed to be valued for deniability. It is actually very difficult to have a reasonable argument to explain why the megacorporations resort to shadowrunners instead of in-house black ops team.
The workarounds who have been brought up are not completely satisfying. The current Shadowrun setting basically gives two ways out: having the scandal involve a small, non-extraterritorial corporation, or having the scandal so big that it could go up to the Corporate Court.
I always found it interesting that in the early days of Shadowrun, the Seattle Sourcebook actually mentioned the FBI investigating MCT connection with Yakuza or Federated-Boeing involvement in a coup d'état in Malaysia, which the setting developped since makes non-sensical.


As far as verisimilitude is concerned, extraterritoriality creates more trouble than it solves.

The very idea of megacorporation is that people don't matter, only profits do. Megacorporations should not really care if their guards or scientists get caught and sent to prisons by the government. They'll replace them. And there's no point for a megacorporation to run its own judicial and prison system (the ideas of guinea pigs or penitentiary legion being marginal at best).

What the megacorporation ought to actively seek is immunity from all those pesky regulations about pollution, safety, quality control or working hours. Which while it makes sense for the setting, is not something that'll show up a lot in stories. Corporate passports may have an interest when politics get in the way of business (when you really want your US executive to head the Iran division, or your Israeli scientist to move to a facility in Saudi Arabia) but that would not be a major point.

Also, I wonder if corporations should really push for official privileges through international treaties, which would benefit their competitors as well, and not stick to getting the same advantages through corruption and low-profile agreements instead. But again, Shadowrun setting involves several decades of changes. Megacorporation did not ascend to the top spot before the 2029-2042 period. So maybe it would have been a lot more unofficial before that.

[Koekepan]

It depends if you intend on rewriting the Shadowrun setting as a whole, or only Shadowrun history, with the goal of reaching a similar or identical setting in the 2050-2070 bracket. In the former case, you have to ask yourself if corporate extraterritoriality really is a desirable thing.

Setting, rules, everything is open to me in principle.

The point of the setting is to write stories that take place inside it. I'm not sure there are many plot elements that require corporate extraterritoriality to be part of the setting.
Security guards with shooting to kill with military-grade weapons? Barely an extension of the "stand-your-ground" principle. Actual corporate military forces? Ask Blackwater. The CEO getting away with whatever crimes and evil experiments the corporate committed? Corrupt officials and scapegoats will do it. The only story that strikes me as hard (or at least harder) to tell in a setting without corporate extraterritoriality is the dumped corporate employee losing his legal identity along with his job.
That works at least for the US and Third World countries. Other countries in the setting, from Europe to Japan, might rely on corporate extraterritoriality to justify having automatic weapons and heavy firefight.

I am trying to remain faithful to the spirit of the setting, and one of the reasons that I'm keen on corporate enclaves is that they sort of herald growing political as well as financial power of megacorporations. They communicate the idea that, far from being crushed by a world gone mad, they found a way to strengthen their hold and expand. It also makes ideological sense, if you think that people in this crazy world might say: "My government is remote and unresponsive, my neighbourhood is a wreck, but the corporation has been there for me. I'm going to live in their arcology because at least I know the dudes at the front desk, and they're extending their daycare into a genuine school run by the best teachers money can buy. And if that means I'm leaving my country behind? Frag 'em. What have they done for me lately?"

I do agree that the point of the setting is to support stories, but one element that you're not really discussing is that the milieu itself, taken as a whole, provides strategic stories, and strategic story elements. Megacorps as global players makes sense if you think that weak and fragmented governments and ruined infrastructure empowers the rise of modern equivalents to the great chartered corporations of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries.

The existence of corporate extraterritoriality also makes some stories difficult if not impossible to tell. Stories that involve a public scandal or the threat of it makes no sense when law does not apply to corporations and brainwashed consumers is an even more central element of the setting. Which is actually one big issue for a RPG whose premise involve protagonists who are supposed to be valued for deniability. It is actually very difficult to have a reasonable argument to explain why the megacorporations resort to shadowrunners instead of in-house black ops team.
The workarounds who have been brought up are not completely satisfying. The current Shadowrun setting basically gives two ways out: having the scandal involve a small, non-extraterritorial corporation, or having the scandal so big that it could go up to the Corporate Court.
I always found it interesting that in the early days of Shadowrun, the Seattle Sourcebook actually mentioned the FBI investigating MCT connection with Yakuza or Federated-Boeing involvement in a coup d'état in Malaysia, which the setting developped since makes non-sensical.
As far as verisimilitude is concerned, extraterritoriality creates more trouble than it solves.

You're not entirely wrong here, but I think that there are factors that apply to make it more complex. Corporations care a lot about PR. If, as I proposed above, there are zones of extraterritoriality, that probably means that these megacorps have lots of areas where they don't have that sort of coverage. National courts can still pierce the corporate veil under some conditions, and nations can still, if given reason to, wall off the extraterritorial zones or even, with good enough reason, take them back by force. Or withdraw the lease on grounds of ostensible non-compliance, or whatever. If a leasehold on an extraterritorial zone requires some standards of good neighbourliness, then shadowrunners become critically valuable to the corp.

I actually had a game running for a while, CSI:Seattle, where the players ran investigators whose real mission was to prove that the government can do better than Lone Star, and thus help justify pushing Lone Star's contract out and get more money in the hands of the bureaucracy. If you think of that tension between nations and megacorporations, there are lots of stories to tell. Or I think so, anyway.

The very idea of megacorporation is that people don't matter, only profits do. Megacorporations should not really care if their guards or scientists get caught and sent to prisons by the government. They'll replace them. And there's no point for a megacorporation to run its own judicial and prison system (the ideas of guinea pigs or penitentiary legion being marginal at best).
What the megacorporation ought to actively seek is immunity from all those pesky regulations about pollution, safety, quality control or working hours. Which while it makes sense for the setting, is not something that'll show up a lot in stories. Corporate passports may have an interest when politics get in the way of business (when you really want your US executive to head the Iran division, or your Israeli scientist to move to a facility in Saudi Arabia) but that would not be a major point.

Some people are replaceable, not all, so that's not completely a settled matter. Their corporate soldiers imprisoned? Probably not a big deal. Scientists? Quite likely a very big deal. Regulatory immunity is certainly an issue, but keeping it once they have it is almost a bigger deal. That situation is ripe for exploitation.

Also, I wonder if corporations should really push for official privileges through international treaties, which would benefit their competitors as well, and not stick to getting the same advantages through corruption and low-profile agreements instead. But again, Shadowrun setting involves several decades of changes. Megacorporation did not ascend to the top spot before the 2029-2042 period. So maybe it would have been a lot more unofficial before that.

The way I structured it in my alternative approach is that they are all ad-hoc arrangements. Corporations are not globally recognised, but a few of them managed to buy or extort special privileges. Here's a bit I wrote on the corporate court:

On the political front, one other big development arose, and that was the Corporate Court. This was because of the inadequacy of the UN. Just like the League of Nations before it, the UN had proven to be mostly useless at preventing war in the age of rampant insurgencies and widespread populist uprisings, and it also turned out to be quite inadequate to deal with conflicts between corporations that had established extraterritoriality. The UN passed a variety of resolutions and measures decrying the greed of corps, and officially wringing their hands, even while the member states of the UN gave away more and more chunks of jurisdiction where corps offered to solve their problems. The UN refused to recognise the corporations as nations, but nobody could deny their influence, so the corps ended up solving the problem themselves, by creating the Corporate Court.

Contrary to popular belief, the Corporate Court doesn't really have authority to do much beyond mediate differences among its membership. However, its dictates tend to be regarded as precedential by large parts of the planet, so it has outsize influence compared to its actual authority. Another factor is that many contracts state that the Corporate Court is the final court of arbitration, even contracts among parties that are not corporations. This makes the technocrats happy, but the populists hate the corporate court with the sort of passion normally reserved for genocidal despots.

[Sengir]

Exemption from business regulations on the other hand, would have been a valuable first step for corporations.

Not to mention exemption from taxes. Extraterritorial corps are obviously not subject to taxation by any country, therefore one a company's income increases over a certain point, it suddenly stops generating ANY revenue to the state.

Which makes the story of the Resource Rush really weird, the US seized land to give it to corps, so that the corps could become large enough to leave a gaping hole in the state budget in return?

corporations can operate in any country in the EU following the labor law of their home country (so you can apply say Slovenia minimum wage and working hours regulations to Polish workers working in Germany)

[citation needed]

[Sengir]

Not entirely related, by I just had an idea about the Seretech decision:

1. The government requires that certain activities to take place only when properly guarded by armed security forces
2. But the government also rules that these requirements for the presence of armed force can only be fulfilled by government employees
3. [sorta, kinda, with a "dem evil gumint" mindset and under special consideration of this briefcase full of cash and that envelope with compromising photos] This is analogous to the government quartering soldiers in one's home
4. In SR's 1999, the Third Amendment was presumably still in place

[Nath]

one element that you're not really discussing is that the milieu itself, taken as a whole, provides strategic stories, and strategic story elements. Megacorps as global players makes sense if you think that weak and fragmented governments and ruined infrastructure empowers the rise of modern equivalents to the great chartered corporations of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries.

I was only writing about the extraterritorial privilege. I do not see extraterritoriality as a requirement for corporations to be global players. In one case, the corporation would have both money, technology and law as sources of their power, while in the other they'd only have money and technology, and that may be enough to beat the crap out of law.

I also found it possibly interesting that corporate extraterritoriality may not necessarily be achieved against the will of the government. Obviously, relinquishing authority over a part of their own territory is not something governments would be eager to do. But just like diplomatic privileges stemmed from a consensus between nations to protect their interests abroad, so may arise corporate extraterritoriality.

Consider what is going on nowadays.
- The United States prosecuted foreign banks and oil companies for dealing (in dollars) with Iran and North Korea, and a number of other corporations (and the FIFA) for corruption cases, even if t didn't take place in the US nor involved US citizens. That's actually what "extraterritoriality" originally stands for (applying a country's law outside of its territory). French company Alstom got a deal to get out of a corruption row ight when it agreed to sell its energy division to General Electric.
- Telecommunications companies, from Huawei hardware to Google online services, get pressured by their respective governments to cooperate with the intelligence services (and likely not just for counter-terrorism).
- Defense companies that use components from US or German companies (in some case their own subsidiaries) gets major contracts blocked abroad because of restrictive export laws of those countries.

So I can imagine some governments could actually support corporate extraterritoriality so as to stop other governments from interfering with their economic interests or national security. The idea is quite similar to how the Vienna convention prevent governments from interfering with diplomacy. Diplomats don't get immunity from search and arrest because they deserve it, but because the government could use those as a mean to interfere, by stealing documents or blackmailing diplomats.
Corporate extraterritoriality can be endorsed by government, and even by the general populace, as standing for "those corporations are so important for the world economy and well-being, no government must be able to interfere". Consider for instance what support a campaign to put web history and social networks outside of the range of US intelligence services could get.

Corporations care a lot about PR. If, as I proposed above, there are zones of extraterritoriality, that probably means that these megacorps have lots of areas where they don't have that sort of coverage. National courts can still pierce the corporate veil under some conditions, and nations can still, if given reason to, wall off the extraterritorial zones or even, with good enough reason, take them back by force. Or withdraw the lease on grounds of ostensible non-compliance, or whatever. If a leasehold on an extraterritorial zone requires some standards of good neighbourliness, then shadowrunners become critically valuable to the corp.

As a reminder, in SR canon, what a lot of people consider as the rules of extraterritoriality only are the UCAS rules, which seemingly go far beyond the BRA requirements. Switzerland and Quebec were described as granting extraterritorial privileges only in designated zones under government approved licenses. The Pueblo thoroughsly audits every megacorporation every year (and did revoke Aztechnology).

If having employees (as opposed to deniable shadowrunners) committing a crime is enough to have the extraterritorial privilege lifted, then extraterritoriality might just as well not exist. The very point of it is to ignore the law. Unless extraterritoriality is thought only as an immunity to business regulations. As I wrote above, it can make sense. But it sure would be a lot less impressive to hardened criminal infiltrators.

I actually had a game running for a while, CSI:Seattle, where the players ran investigators whose real mission was to prove that the government can do better than Lone Star, and thus help justify pushing Lone Star's contract out and get more money in the hands of the bureaucracy. If you think of that tension between nations and megacorporations, there are lots of stories to tell. Or I think so, anyway.

Again, I was speaking about corporations having extraterritoriality, not about corporations having power. Your story works just as well if Lone Star Security Services is a regular security corporation without extraterritorial privileges.

Not to mention exemption from taxes. Extraterritorial corps are obviously not subject to taxation by any country, therefore one a company's income increases over a certain point, it suddenly stops generating ANY revenue to the state.

As far as Shadowrun canon goes, Corporate Download specifically states that extraterritorial megacorporations are expected to pay taxes. They may evade taxes, but so do corporations nowadays.

It worthes remining that extraterritoriality applies to, well, territory. It applies to places. Corporations, as legal persons, have no physical existence. Ares Macrotechnology really is just a registering filling at Michigan state Departement of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (likely an electronic document anyway). It cannot "move" into one of its extraterritorial building to magically leave the legal system inside which it exists.

This has strong implications that cannot be overlooked. For instance, megacorporations usually are subject to laws that say the President/CEO cannot expropriate shareholders who didn't vote for him or her at whim (also preventing managers of a subsidiaries to secede from their parent companies).

Which makes the story of the Resource Rush really weird, the US seized land to give it to corps, so that the corps could become large enough to leave a gaping hole in the state budget in return?

Again, the Resource Rush took place in the first decade or so of the 21st century. There's is little to no clue on what "extraterritoriality" established by the Shiwase decision did, or whom it applied to. It can be hazarded that for some reasons, it did not apply to every 2-employees corporations in the US. It possibly was supposed to only apply to foreign-owned corporations like Shiawase at first. The Resource Rush could then make even more sense if it was intended to be limited to US-only corporations, as an attempt to block extraterritoriality from spreading.

Politicians can also accept less taxes when it is compensated by more campaign funds.

Also, the EU actually established in real life something to which the "extraterritorial" term could apply, albeit in its original legal meaning: corporations can operate in any country in the EU following the labor law of their home country (so you can apply say Slovenia minimum wage and working hours regulations to Polish workers working in Germany).

[citation needed]

I stand corrected. Minimum rates of pay, maximum works and minimum rest periods and paid annual holidays were specifically excluded, among other things.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri...96L0071:EN:HTML

So in my examples, you can apply Slovenian laws on dismissal (except for pregnant women), retirement schemes, unions and strike actions. Payroll taxes and contributions would also be paid in Slovenia. Less impressive than my original example I know.

[Sengir]

As a reminder, in SR canon, what a lot of people consider as the rules of extraterritoriality only are the UCAS rules, which seemingly go far beyond the BRA requirements. Switzerland and Quebec were described as granting extraterritorial privileges only in designated zones under government approved licenses.

How is that different from conventional states gaining territory by buying land from another nation, like for example Alaska? The seller can determine which land is put up for sale (although IRL, many such transfers happened under the threat of military force), and the treaty can include provisions that it needs to be re-negotiated regularly or might even become void under certain conditions.

As far as Shadowrun canon goes, Corporate Download specifically states that extraterritorial megacorporations are expected to pay taxes. They may evade taxes, but so do corporations nowadays.

You have a page ref for that? My copy of Corporate Download is a bit analogue (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

It worthes remining that extraterritoriality applies to, well, territory. It applies to places. Corporations, as legal persons, have no physical existence. Ares Macrotechnology really is just a registering filling at Michigan state Departement of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (likely an electronic document anyway). It cannot "move" into one of its extraterritorial building to magically leave the legal system inside which it exists.

That's like saying France has no physical existence since it's only a place and not a living person. There is no definite consensus on what constitutes a state, but Ares Macrotechnology meets all commonly cited criteria: A defined territory and citizenship, the monopoly on use of force -- more so than the UCAS, because Ares does its own law enforcement -- and a standing army to defend against outside interference, the recognition by the majority the world's countries which signed the BRAs and the ability to conduct foreign policy with them...

Again, the Resource Rush took place in the first decade or so of the 21st century. There's is little to no clue on what "extraterritoriality" established by the Shiwase decision did, or whom it applied to.

Well, Corporate Download does say that extraterritoriality was initially limited to "certain corporate sites under conditions set down by the Supreme Court". But it also says that corps went extraterritorial "all over the place in the early 00s (p. 21)". According to the official timeline, the Resource Rush happened "rarely a year after the Shiawase Decision", so there must have been some overlap.

A possible explanation would be that faced with losing its control over more and more corps, the US tried to buy the loyalty of the remaining ones with the Amerind reservations. And then the corps broke the promises made concerning that land and declared that it was now their country, can you believe it? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Sendaz]

For Corps paying taxes, page 21 in Corporate download says this:

LAW AND POWER
The Corporate Court represents itself as the only
authority by which extraterritorial corporations are bound.
In practice. corps are still expected lo respect national
jurisdictions. pay taxes and otherwise act as good guests
when Inside national borders. However. the Court Is clearly
the only entity with Jurisdiction over all extraterritorial
corps-at the behest, of course, of the Big Ten.


And most of the corps do still want nations around as it deals with a lot of the normal civil day to day stuff that really isn't that profitable and more headache than HR & Accounting wants to deal with.

[Nath]

How is that different from conventional states gaining territory by buying land from another nation, like for example Alaska? The seller can determine which land is put up for sale (although IRL, many such transfers happened under the threat of military force), and the treaty can include provisions that it needs to be re-negotiated regularly or might even become void under certain conditions.

Land purchases that translate into territorial extensions, would been made under law of international treaties. Such agreement is enforced by both states, cannot be rewritten without their mutual consent (through a new treaty), and litigation can only be brought up to an international arbitrage body (or settled by a war leading to a forced mutual consent for a new treaty...).

An administrative decision by a government to allow corporate or foreign operations inside a designated zone would fall under the country legal system, could be altered at will by the executive or legislative branch of the government, and litigation would be brought to a national jurisdiction.

With a treaty, you're stuck with the terms as they were put down when it was ratified, or hope the Corporate Court will back you. With a national law, the government has the opportunity to alter the rules of the games at any point (though, in Quebec and Switzerland cases, within the limits of the BRA, which is a treaty).

That's like saying France has no physical existence since it's only a place and not a living person. There is no definite consensus on what constitutes a state, but Ares Macrotechnology meets all commonly cited criteria: A defined territory and citizenship, the monopoly on use of force -- more so than the UCAS, because Ares does its own law enforcement -- and a standing army to defend against outside interference, the recognition by the majority the world's countries which signed the BRAs and the ability to conduct foreign policy with them...

I disagree with the idea that Ares has any "defined territory".

Ares does own lands and buildings bought or leased in accordance to commercial law of the land where they are located. Each would require an international treaty that specifically recognize the land purchase as a territorial grant. Leasing land would not count: neither Guatanamo nor US other bases in Europe, Japan or anywhere else are actual US territory. However, international treaty can only be negotiated by states or international organizations. In the US, the law requires the Congress to ratify the treaty. Nor John Q. Doe, owner a of a building in Detroit downtown, nor the city of Detroit or the state of Michigan can engage in an international treaty with Ares to grant it land.
Canon sources rather points at extraterritoriality applying to all owned or leased land indiscriminately (and never mentions the Congress voting on every acquisition).

Nowadays, a for-profit corporation would not even been considered as an international organization with the ability to enter into a treaty. They can only enter contracts. That would be different in Shadowrun, though I'm not sure that would actually be that cut-and-dry. I think that once the BRA establish the Corporate Court as the obligatory arbitrage body for litigations between a megacorporation and a state, treaties and contracts becomes equivalent. But a legal expert might think otherwise.

The idea of defined citizenship is also debatable, considering that Ares can hire or fire "citizens" at will.

To me, the point of the Business Recognition Accords is, as somewhat suggested by the name, to recognize corporations and contracts as subjects of international laws. Which is wholly different from trying to establish corporations as states and their contracts as treaties. Recognition as states could have a number of nasty side effects. Countries that did not sign the BRA for instance, could recognize them as state nonetheless and only be bound by customary law regarding travel, diplomacy, maritime zone, war... As said above, people, local and national administrations could face restriction in their business relationships with the corporations. Corps have better things to do than trying to join Model UN club ("Come on, it's a lame club, even Liechtenstein was allowed in."). Why submit to the existing international laws when you can establish your own distinct jurisdictional order? And finally, it would defeat the point for the Corporate Court: the AAA prime megacorporations wanted other megacorporations to owe them. States is customary status, and an ill-defined one. The BRA makes it clear that the Corporate Court gets to decide who is a megacorporation and who is not. To simply push for corporations to be considered as states would allow states to recognize who they want.

[Sengir]

An administrative decision by a government to allow corporate or foreign operations inside a designated zone would fall under the country legal system

That is your assumption. The Extraterritorial Business Zones could just as well mean that Quebec does sell/lease land to become part of another state's territory, but only offers land within these zones for sale/lease.

BTW, Switzerland did not sign the BRAs

However, international treaty can only be negotiated by states or international organizations. In the US, the law requires the Congress to ratify the treaty. Nor John Q. Doe, owner a of a building in Detroit downtown, nor the city of Detroit or the state of Michigan can engage in an international treaty with Ares to grant it land.

Objection: If a nation signed a treaty saying that Ares as a state can buy land and such purchases will be considered just as binding as the Alaska Purchase, Ares can do exactly that. The BRAs would be exactly this treaty.

I disagree with the idea that Ares has any "defined territory".

The idea of defined citizenship is also debatable, considering that Ares can hire or fire "citizens" at will.

I would contend that Ares' territory is better defined than the territory of most nation states, even between states with friendly relations the exact borders are often unclear.

And the conditions for naturalization or stripping a person of their citizenship are something states decide on their own, most won't kick somebody into statelessness, but some don't give a damn.

Corps have better things to do than trying to join Model UN club ("Come on, it's a lame club, even Liechtenstein was allowed in."). Why submit to the existing international laws when you can establish your own distinct jurisdictional order?

So you simply don't, UN membership is neither necessary nor sufficient to be considered a state and abstaining from international conventions is official policy of the real-life USA because ZOMG NWO, last time I checked the USA were still considered a nation. Yeah well, there are those sovereign citizen types, but...

[Nath]

An administrative decision by a government to allow corporate or foreign operations inside a designated zone would fall under the country legal system

That is your assumption. The Extraterritorial Business Zones could just as well mean that Quebec does sell/lease land to become part of another state's territory, but only offers land within these zones for sale/lease.

Your idea was to emulate the purchase of Alaska. A purchase is definitive. If you include any provision to revoke it, it's a lease, no matter if it's the result of an international treaty or of a national internal act of law. The Quebec zones d'entreprise are actually described as leases, that the government can revoke at any time. The fact that such lease can be revoked would prevent those land to be considered as a permanent sovereign territory.

Lease would be possible either through an internal act of law or an international treaty with another state or an international organization. If it's an internal act or if it's a treaty who doesn't provisions further detail about revokation, the government of Quebec can change the rules when it wants to about what conditions allow the lease to be revoked. It can decide that it requires a two-third majority at the parliament with a 6 months period of notice just as it can decide that it only requires a strong presumption from a policeman on or off-duty. A treaty could be more elaborate about conditions and procedures for the revocation of the lease. Either way, it's a lease and the land is not going to be considered as permanent sovereign territory.


Yes. I assume megacorporations' facilities are systematically referred to as "extraterritorial enclaves" rather than "territorial enclaves" for a reason, which would be that megacorporations do not have actual territory, in Quebec or elsewhere. Which in turn explain why megacorporations are always referred to as "corporations" rather than "states".

I'm not saying it is impossible to legally write and ratify treaties that establish the kind of situation you describe. I'm saying what has been described in Shadowrun so far doesn't match.

However, international treaty can only be negotiated by states or international organizations. In the US, the law requires the Congress to ratify the treaty. Nor John Q. Doe, owner a of a building in Detroit downtown, nor the city of Detroit or the state of Michigan can engage in an international treaty with Ares to grant it land.

Objection: If a nation signed a treaty saying that Ares as a state can buy land and such purchases will be considered just as binding as the Alaska Purchase, Ares can do exactly that. The BRAs would be exactly this treaty.

The BRA would not be this treaty. The BRA set provisions for megacorporate status for all the Corporate Court designated corporations. It applies to corporations who had yet to be designated by the court at the time (for example, Wuxing only was in 2045 and Cross Applied Technologies after 2050) and corporations who didn't even exist (like Horizon, created in 2062).

No corporate land purchase or lease can be as binding as Alaska purchase, which was permanent. As said above, a lease defeat the very definition of permanent sovereign territory. And whether it's a lease or a purchase, there is a third party, the Corporate Court, who can revoke a megacorporation's status and extraterritorial privileges, which reverts lands to their natural situation, without changing their ownership or leasing. That fact actually deprives megacorporations of sovereignity.

I would contend that Ares' territory is better defined than the territory of most nation states,
even between states with friendly relations the exact borders are often unclear.

And the conditions for naturalization or stripping a person of their citizenship are something states decide on their own, most won't kick somebody into statelessness, but some don't give a damn

I wasn't discussing the fact that Ares' territory was well-defined or not. I was discussing the fact the Ares has any territory at all. Ares owns well-defined tracks of land. But as pointed above, Ares authority over them is not permanent and can revert to the local state. There's a reason they are called "extraterritorial enclaves" rather than "territorial enclaves".

As I said, it is more debatable regarding citizenship. To me, the difference is the intent. A state is expected to maintain a permanent population (and genocide and exiles are frowned upon by the rest of the world), while some megacorporations would barely consider employment as a long-term relationship. Some definition of state actually don't even consider "citizens" and refer instead to a population in a territory.

Corps have better things to do than trying to join Model UN club ("Come on, it's a lame club, even Liechtenstein was allowed in."). Why submit to the existing international laws when you can establish your own distinct jurisdictional order?

So you simply don't, UN membership is neither necessary nor sufficient to be considered a state and abstaining from international conventions is official policy of the real-life USA because ZOMG NWO, last time I checked the USA were still considered a nation. Yeah well, there are those sovereign citizen types, but...

Sorry for the misunderstanding. My mention of the "Model UN club" was intended to be an ironic term for state status at large, the membership in the so-called "Concert of Nations", not just actual membership of the United Nations Organization.

The problem with existing international laws is not what they would prevent such corporations-states from doing, but as I said what it would also other states (including other corporations-states) to do to them: non-recognition, visa requirements, economical sanctions, blockades, wars... with no opportunity to call upon free trades.

Besides, the very fact that megacorporations are expected to pay taxes by states and the Corporate Court alike points toward megacorporations either not considered as states or their presence considered as an economical activity anyway (economical activities by foreign states are subject to taxes, but also deprived from most privileges enjoyed by foreign states).

[Sengir]

Your idea was to emulate the purchase of Alaska. A purchase is definitive. If you include any provision to revoke it, it's a lease, no matter if it's the result of an international treaty or of a national internal act of law.

Whether the transfer of territory is permanent or temporary is irrelevant. The Alaska Purchase could have been limited to certain duration (like Hong Kong or the Panama Canal Zone), it could have included provisions for periodic renewal or conditions under which the treaty expires, for the time the treaty remains in force it wouldn't make a difference. Also notice that one of the few definite things we know about the BRAs is that the site needs to be "continuous and contiguous, recognized and long-term" but not permanent.

Sovereignty includes the ability to enter contractual obligations under conditions you and the other party agree on. If Ares and Quebec agree that Ares gains a certain piece of Quebecois territory under the condition that the lease has to be renewed once a year, or even under stricter conditions, it is their sovereign right to do so. Preventing Ares from accepting these conditions would be an infringement on Ares' sovereignty.

Same for your argument about the CC deciding who is extraterritorial and who is not: The signatories of the BRAs agree that the CC has this power, so be it.

while some megacorporations would barely consider employment as a long-term relationship.

Corporate states go together with another cyberpunk trope: "Company Housing, Company Hymn, Company Grave". You stay with the company for life and when in doubt they'll enforce the "for life" part, that's why extractions take place.

The problem with existing international laws is not what they would prevent such corporations-states from doing, but as I said what it would also other states (including other corporations-states) to do to them: non-recognition, visa requirements, economical sanctions, blockades, wars... with no opportunity to call upon free trades.

Just like regular states can embargo each other. The Corporate Court would however take a rather dim view of such messing with their free trade, therefore anybody engaging in such ill-advised policies would again face something between a strangely well-funded opposition party and a tungsten rod deorbited right on their head.

[Nath]

Whether the transfer of territory is permanent or temporary is irrelevant. The Alaska Purchase could have been limited to certain duration (like Hong Kong or the Panama Canal Zone), it could have included provisions for periodic renewal or conditions under which the treaty expires, for the time the treaty remains in force it wouldn't make a difference.

The Panama Canal Zone remained an unincorporated territory of the US. The Constitution did not apply (as ruled by SCOTUS in Downes v. Bidwell) and being born in the zone did not grant US citizenship (it requires one of your parent to be also an US citizen). Hong Kong was a British Crown Colony ruled by a governor appointed by the king or queen. No British citizenship for its inhabitants. Both Panama and Hong Kong were considered as distinct from US and UK by their own governments.

Also notice that one of the few definite things we know about the BRAs is that the site needs to be "continuous and contiguous, recognized and long-term" but not permanent.

Yes. That is the requirements from Shadowrun Business Recognition Accords for a corporate facility to be considered an extraterritorial enclave.

You are basically saying BRA-recognized extraterritorial enclaves should be considered as a state sovereign territory because the BRA recognize them as extraterritorial enclaves.

Sovereignty includes the ability to enter contractual obligations under conditions you and the other party agree on. If Ares and Quebec agree that Ares gains a certain piece of Quebecois territory under the condition that the lease has to be renewed once a year, or even under stricter conditions, it is their sovereign right to do so. Preventing Ares from accepting these conditions would be an infringement on Ares' sovereignty.

Same for your argument about the CC deciding who is extraterritorial and who is not: The signatories of the BRAs agree that the CC has this power, so be it.

My argument actually is that the very fact the Corporate Court has that power deprives all megacorporations of any pretense of sovereignty. Quebec is actually not recognizing Ares any sovereignty over a track of land as long as it is bound by the BRA to resume control and jurisdiction over that land as soon as the Corporate Court demands it. It is the very meaning of sovereignty that no third party can interfere. If another state or organization can decide for you in a binding manner, you're not sovereign.

Quebec, as a sovereign nation, can totally recognize Ares Macrotechnology, or the Universal Brotherhood, the Concrete Dreams or the Boston Celtics, as a sovereign state and enter a treaty to grant them a territory under the conditions they agree on. In Ares' cases, Quebec would be infringing the BRA. And possibly piss off the UCAS, since it accounts to recognizing an UCAS-based group as an independent state.

Just like regular states can embargo each other. The Corporate Court would however take a rather dim view of such messing with their free trade, therefore anybody engaging in such ill-advised policies would again face something between a strangely well-funded opposition party and a tungsten rod deorbited right on their head.

Yes, a state can embargo one another. While existing trade laws prevents them from declaring an embargo on a company. There are, obviously, creative approach to circumvent this, but their reach is limited. They can also refuse and fight off land claim over a part of their territory as self-defense.

Again, what's the point for the Corporate Court and the megacorporations to make such conflicts possible in the first place when they can simply avoid them by just claiming state-like powers without claming the "state" title? Pride and in-your-face attitude?

[Sengir]

Both Panama and Hong Kong were considered as distinct from US and UK by their own governments.

That's a matter of internal divisions, but my point is that from another nation's POV, those territories were UK/US territory.

China had as much legal say in Hong Kong as they had in London, and sending troops to Hong Kong would technically have been the same as PLA troops marching down Downing Street. Despite the transfer of territory being not permanent, for the time being it was just as independent from China as any other state's territory.

You are basically saying BRA-recognized extraterritorial enclaves should be considered as a state sovereign territory because the BRA recognize them as extraterritorial enclaves.

Yes, recognizing something as outside (extra-) your state's territory kinda implies that

It is the very meaning of sovereignty that no third party can interfere. If another state or organization can decide for you in a binding manner, you're not sovereign.

That's bullshit, really. If a state can decide matters without outside interference, then this includes the ability to acknowledge another party as the binding decision maker.

Your definition of sovereignty is more akin to extreme isolationism, and accordingly only a few "hermit countries" like North Korea would come close to being "sovereign" under your definition.

Yes, a state can embargo one another. While existing trade laws prevents them from declaring an embargo on a company.

If a state or group of states declares an embargo against another state, the result usually is an embargo against companies.

Furthermore, who enforces those trade laws? If there is a body which enforces free trade (let's call it "Corporate Court" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ), it can still enforce those rules after those companies became states. If there is none, well, then it does not matter either way.

RE the taxes, here is the interesting part Sendaz quoted again:

Corps are still expected lo respect national jurisdictions. pay taxes and otherwise act as good guests when Inside national borders.

"When inside national borders" is the opposite of "extraterritorial", so all this tells us is -- once more -- that diplomatic missions are not comparable to SR extraterritoriality, because when an Ares exec steps outside Ares extraterritorial holdings, he is subject to local law just like everybody else.

[Nath]

The Panama Canal Zone remained an unincorporated territory of the US. The Constitution did not apply (as ruled by SCOTUS in Downes v. Bidwell) and being born in the zone did not grant US citizenship (it requires one of your parent to be also an US citizen). Hong Kong was a British Crown Colony ruled by a governor appointed by the king or queen. No British citizenship for its inhabitants. Both Panama and Hong Kong were considered as distinct from US and UK by their own governments.

That's a matter of internal divisions, but my point is that from another nation's POV, those territories were UK/US territory.

China had as much legal say in Hong Kong as they had in London, and sending troops to Hong Kong would technically have been the same as PLA troops marching down Downing Street. Despite the transfer of territory being not permanent, for the time being it was just as independent from China as any other state's territory.

From other nations' point of view, the Isthmian Canal Convention the Convention of Chuenpee that established the Panama Canal Zone and the British Crown possession of Hong Kong were international treaties because the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (along with Panama and China) were recognized as sovereign states for having a defined territory and citizenship and the ability to conduct a foreign policy.

If Panama had granted control to, say, the Compagnie universelle du canal interocénatique de Panama, S.A., a number of other nations', starting with France, where the company was headquartered, and the US, who wanted control of the canal, would have considered the document merely as a commercial contract between the Panamean government and a French company.

You are basically saying BRA-recognized extraterritorial enclaves should be considered as a state sovereign territory because the BRA recognize them as extraterritorial enclaves.

Yes, recognizing something as outside (extra-) your state's territory kinda implies that

Not all territories are sovereign. So a country recognizing a land as not belonging to its sovereign territory is not implying it is recognizing it as the sovereign territory of another country.

That was precisely the case for the Panama Canal Zone and Hong Kong, which were not part of US and UK sovereign territories, nor were they part of Panama and Chinese sovereign territories.

That's bullshit, really. If a state can decide matters without outside interference, then this includes the ability to acknowledge another party as the binding decision maker. Your definition of sovereignty is more akin to extreme isolationism, and accordingly only a few "hermit countries" like North Korea would come close to being "sovereign" under your definition.

Yes, a sovereign state can totally do that. And that's called relinquinshing sovereignty over a territory: deciding without outside interference that decisions regarding that territory will from now on be subject to outside interferences.

Sovereignty is defined as supreme and absolute power over something. Sovereign states can abandon sovereignty over a territory or a policy. They remain sovereign states as long as they retain sovereignty over some territory and population. It also happens that sovereign states completely relinquishes their sovereignty to become a protectorate or a dependent territory of another state.

From the signing of the BRA, megacorporations had no sovereignty over any of their lands, because all are subjects to the authority of the Corporate Court.

If a state or group of states declares an embargo against another state, the result usually is an embargo against companies.

Which requires an indiscriminate embargo against all companies from that country. The point of that rules is to prevent governments from targeting one or several specific companies to support their own national champions.

In practice, corps are still expected to respect national jurisdictions, pay taxes and otherwise act as good guests when inside national borders.

"When inside national borders" is the opposite of "extraterritorial", so all this tells us is -- once more -- that diplomatic missions are not comparable to SR extraterritoriality, because when an Ares exec steps outside Ares extraterritorial holdings, he is subject to local law just like everybody else.

"When inside national borders" happens to be the opposite of "extraterritorial" for the definition of extraterritoriality that Shadowrun is not using.

A jurisdiction is said to be extraterritorial when a state applies its law outside its territory. For instance, when a US court tries terrorists for the bombing of embassies or warship in another country, it is extraterritoriality. That is not a territorial claim over the land where it took place (though the other country or the defendants may label it as "imperialism").

In Shadowrun, extraterritoriality is used in its other meaning, which applies to diplomatic missions and similar places, and means "inside national borders with an exemption from the national and local jurisdictions".

Note that as far as the quote goes, to "act as good guests" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "being subject to local law just like everybody else." Diplomats are also expected to act as good guests. But the local government can't do nothing about it if they don't. The very point of that sentence is to point at the fact the Corporate Court is the only authority that can punish the megacorporations if they don't do that.

[Sengir]

If Panama had granted control to, say, the Compagnie universelle du canal interocénatique de Panama, S.A., a number of other nations', starting with France, where the company was headquartered, and the US, who wanted control of the canal, would have considered the document merely as a commercial contract between the Panamean government and a French company.

Yes, because IRL France and the US have not signed a treaty recognizing corporate extraterritoriality. In Shadowrun, they have.

Sovereignty is defined as supreme and absolute power over something.

Which would require a fully self-sufficient economy, technology which renders any military attack irrelevant (MAD would not be enough, the other side can still kill you even though they'll die in the process), and foreign policy written by Max Stirner.

Your definition of a sovereign state simply does not exist.

In Shadowrun, extraterritoriality is used in its other meaning, which applies to diplomatic missions and similar places, and means "inside national borders with an exemption from the national and local jurisdictions".

Here is the status Shadowrun Canon attributes to diplomatic missions, verbatim from page 9 of Corporate Download:
Extraterritoriality used to apply only to embassies of foreign countries. If you were in New York but stepped into the British Consulate, you were considered to be in Britain for legal purposes, and subject to British law.

While diplomatic missions in reality have a different status (and embassies are different from consulates), this passage and many similar ones make it clear that when the authors described the status of extraterritorial corps as being like embassies, they were not talking about the actual status embassies have. They were (and still are) talking the status they have according to urban legend, where you step over a line and are in another country.

[Nath]

If Panama had granted control to, say, the Compagnie universelle du canal interocéanique de Panama, S.A., a number of other nations', starting with France, where the company was headquartered, and the US, who wanted control of the canal, would have considered the document merely as a commercial contract between the Panamean government and a French company.

Yes, because IRL France and the US have not signed a treaty recognizing corporate extraterritoriality. In Shadowrun, they have.

France and the UCAS have signed a treaty recognizing a privilege of corporate extraterritoriality to apply for the corporations designated by the corporate court whose practical effects were set by their respective legislative and administrative powers.

I do understand your line of reasoning that, once the megacorporations get recognized as having statehood and/or territories, they should kept being recognized as having statehood and/or territories, as well as the capacity to enter international treaties and acquire more territories.
My line of reasoning, is that they would never get recognized as such - and likely not seek it - for the aforementioned reasons.
So at least our respective lines appear to be internally consistent.

Sovereignty is defined as supreme and absolute power over something.

Which would require a fully self-sufficient economy, technology which renders any military attack irrelevant (MAD would not be enough, the other side can still kill you even though they'll die in the process), and foreign policy written by Max Stirner.

Your definition of a sovereign state simply does not exist.

I think one could really write a credible 500-pages essay titled The fall of nations: how sovereignty ceased to exist as an effective concept in the aftermath of WW2. I actually think quite a few experts already did something like that. Sovereignty has lost its meaning in a world with large stockpile of strategic weaponry and interdependent international trade. For a given meaning of "meaning". The definition of sovereignty in international laws has not changed the slightest. And it's a large part of the problem that the international system built over those laws cannot acknowledge any change to the definition of sovereignty and statehood - which define whom they apply to - without collapsing.

Sovereign statehood is a legacy existing countries inherited directly or indirectly from 19th century nations-states. It is now effectively impossible for an entity to prove it ought to be recognized as a sovereign state if it does not hail from an existing sovereign state through proper negotiations (see the case of Taiwan or Somaliland).
International laws are a mess and, as I wrote above, I'm not seeing a point for corporations to force their way into that system by getting recognized as states, with a massive number of precautions and exemptions for it not to backfire at them, when they have the clout to establish their own distinct legal order, ruled over by the corporate court.

[Sengir]

Sovereignty has lost its meaning in a world with large stockpile of strategic weaponry and interdependent international trade.

Who needs strategic weapons? By your definition a state already loses its sovereignty from a minor rebellion in some subjugated province. The government's decision to send soldiers is not entirely their own but created by forces outside their control -> not sovereign.

[Nath]

Who needs strategic weapons? By your definition a state already loses its sovereignty from a minor rebellion in some subjugated province. The government's decision to send soldiers is not entirely their own but created by forces outside their control -> not sovereign.

First, your example is utterly wrong on one point: a government's decision is totally its own. The situation has indeed been created by forces outside their control, starting with gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces, then all the way down to current day with the continental drift and dinos extinction and all that, and the freewill of people. It can be a constrained decision. It can be a collective decision. But there had to be an alternative choice - even if it is 'do nothing' - for it to be a decision. Otherwise it ought to be called a reaction (which is interestingly enough often used in political commentaries).

If your definition of what a decision is is flawed, no way you can get the definition of sovereignty right. That's the entire point of sovereignty: can anyone outside decide instead of the government? Not just advise them. Not frighten them with threats. Not counter or block their moves. Not punish them afterwards. Narrowing their alternatives until only one remains? Close enough, but the last remaining alternative ought to be 'do nothing' and it's called overthrowing the government, effectively putting an end to sovereignty.

Now why bother with a rebellion? Random John Doe running a red light is defeating the law of the state. But neither of those things touch sovereignty.

Sovereignty is a legal concept in international law. International law first and foremost formally deal with states and their governments and international organizations. A state is more than just its government. The people belongs to the state. In the case of a rebellion or red light runs, those population still are part of the state. As far as other states would be concerned, it is an "internal matter" with one part of the state (the local population) not obeying rules set by another part of the state (the government). And yes, international law can appear to be crazy. Like all other domains of law.

Legality is not expected to magically shape reality by itself, neither it is to let itself been altered by physical reality. Even when it's no longer practically possible to ignore reality, it's still require an act of law to acknowledge such change (like recognizing a separatist province as a new state). Laws and treaties define what is legal. The very purpose of the use of force by a government is to narrow the gap between what is real and what is legal.

[Sengir]

First, your example is utterly wrong on one point: a government's decision is totally its own.

You mean a decision like deciding to transfer certain powers to a supranational body? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Nath]

You mean a decision like deciding to transfer certain powers to a supranational body? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Actual transfer of powers are fairly rare.

Members of the European Union are expected to willingly implement EU decisions, but that step is still to be taken by national authorities. It regularly happens that one or several member states delay such implementation for years, until they are threatened of a "fine" added to their contribution to the EU budget. A state that wouldn't pay his share of budget (without or without fines) may be kicked out of the end. But at no point can the EU actually force its decisions to come into effect.

United Nations decision are even more routinely ignored. Inside the World Trade Organization, states who fail to abide by their obligations of lowering trade barriers can only be punished by allowing other states to establish sanctions of a similar value. International Criminal Tribunals do request the states to relinquish their power to prosecute criminals and transfer their cases to an international court. But that requirement is not backed by any actual power. Extradition to the court remains a sovereign decision, and so would be a trial by a national jurisdiction for those crime (the "permanent" International Criminal Tribunal provisions actually only allow prosecution for cases in which no state is "willing" and "able" to prosecute, thus only infringing on a state sovereign right to not prosecute - and it still cannot force extradition).

In all of those cases, governments are willingly submitting to treaties and subsequent requests. At no point does a civil servant, a judge, a policeman or a soldier in exercise within its borders is going to take order from a foreign authority. If that was to happen, then yes, the state sovereignty could be put into question.