Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Extraterritoriality
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
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
QUOTE (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.

I just checked and the Shiawise decision, and not only is it a bad idea, it plain doesn't make sense.

2 years prior a ruling was made in favor of Seretech, allowing corps to establish their own standing armies.

in 2001, someone flubs an attack on a nuclear plant owned by a corp (which is allowed to have a defending army), and all of a sudden, the Government doesn't want to touch them with a 10m pole?!

There's no explanation in SR3 over why the Shiawise Decision would actually be made, which just makes things worse, IMO.
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
QUOTE (Synner @ Nov 28 2003, 05:01 PM)
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).


the conditions that need apply for corps and their subsidiaries to- oh.

Dammit Sphynx! You took the words right out of my mouth! biggrin.gif


On the issue at hand though: I don't much care if it makes that much sense. As long as it makes enough sense and is possible, then I'll live with it (As has been stated, for a 1st world country to do it is extremely unlikely. But it HAS happened in places like central america and africa, which is good enough for me. Its possible.). Its all part of the flavour of the shadowrun universe we know and love!
Synner
QUOTE (spotlite)
Dammit Sphynx! You took the words right out of my mouth! biggrin.gif

I resent that, if you're going to confuse me with someone please do so with someone else. nyahnyah.gif
spotlite
blah! All cylinders firing on 'what the frag is fuel?'!!!!

Sorry Sinner. Sorry Sphynx.
Synner
QUOTE (spotlite)
Sorry Sinner.

Sometimes there's just no getting it right is there. nyahnyah.gif
Spookymonster
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Nov 28 2003, 11:59 AM)
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.

At one time, the idea of corporations holding rights like people seemed fairly outlandish ( here's a shorter article that sums it up as well).

Frankly, given the powers granted them by the World Bank, WTO, NAFTA, and the United Nations, megacorporations (like GM) adopting nation-state status would actually be a step back. They'd have to swallow the cost of supporting their own civil code (arbitrators, judges, penal systems, etc.), rather than just renting the local constabulary out by the hour wink.gif.
Nath
QUOTE (Backgammon)
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.


If I trust them, a "subsidiary" is always controlled by a parent company with half plus one of the shares or more.

QUOTE (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).

What I thought but I searched the Corporate Download for a quote for about half an hour and still found nothing. Dunno about the Shadowfiles.

In Blood in the Boardroom page 70a there is an example that assume subsidiaries are extraterritorial as well, as long as the parent megacorp declare them. Of course a random Shadowland poster might be as knowledgeable of international laws than a random DSf poster. Frightening thought, ain't it ? wink.gif

QUOTE (Synner)
Only A and AA corps are extraterritorial and what extraterritoriality implies has been greatly overblown. To name just a few common misconceptions:

The AA and AAA nyahnyah.gif

BTW, concerning the Shiawase Decision, the US could start "giving multinational corporations the same right and privileges than foreign nations" just by dropping the article 95 of the CISG. IIRC currently when a foreign company X wants to do business with the US government or an US company, it is forced to do it by US rules. With the CISG it could be done under the US laws or under the laws of X country. Nothing major. Anyway the Shiawase Decision, as the Seretech one, are supposed to be Supreme's. That's a lot different from a political decision taken by the Administration or the Congress. We still know nothing of the exact provisions of extraterritoriality when it showed up in different countries in SR in the 2000s. Even with the BRA "standard" established in the 2040s there are still a lot of disparities between extraterritoriality in the UCAS, the CAS or Québec.
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
QUOTE (Nath @ Nov 28 2003, 08:48 PM)
What I thought but I searched the Corporate Download for a quote for about half an hour and still found nothing. Dunno about the Shadowfiles.

A combined reading of Woobly and Chromed Accountant's introductory comments on pages 10-12. nyahnyah.gif

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
[...]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.

It has to with the Constitution since it interferes with such basic aspects of nationality as the limits of sovereign power (it could have been simply justified as having a precedent in embassies and other non-sovereign territories within the country).

Regardless it took almost 40 years after that for "practically every other country in the world" to sign on to the BRA (2042). Some did so faster than others but it's never been said that it was spontaneous or immediate. In many countries the way would have had to be paved with political pressure, corruption, constitutional changes, government manipulation or buyout, sanctions, etc. In others the circumstances of the Sixth World would have forced governments into corners and eventually most would sign on (ie. the ADL's military junta seeking to revive/stabilize the economy, Great Britain's conservatives looking for corporate responsability for the ecocatastrophes, etc).
Siege
Well, the concept of a corp possessing extraterritoriality makes the "nasty, evil corp" just that much scarier to players.

-Siege
spotlite
QUOTE (Synner)
QUOTE (spotlite @ Nov 28 2003, 06:03 PM)
Sorry Sinner.

Sometimes there's just no getting it right is there. nyahnyah.gif

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!! wobble.gif

Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (hobgoblin)
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?

Emphasis on the word "tries."
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. smile.gif (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
QUOTE (Synner)
A combined reading of Woobly and Chromed Accountant's introductory comments on pages 10-12.

No way. They say megacorps have extraterritoriality, they say megacorps have subsidiaries. They never say extraterritoriality apply to subsidiaries.

QUOTE (Synner)
Regardless it took almost 40 years after that for "practically every other country in the world" to sign on to the BRA (2042).

In 2042, the Corporate Court invited most nations to support a standard of extraterritoriality. And that was called the BRA. It took 40 years to decide to create the BRA, not to sign it. According to the Corporate Download, "before long [after the Shiawase Decision], the corps had initated events that precipated similar rulings in most major nations."
Nath
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
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?

The fact that the shiawase Decision was a supreme court one is in every SR rulebook. From what I understand of the US system, it doesn't have to have to do something with the Constitution. In that case that was "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission vs. The Shiawase Corporation." Since the former is a federal agency, I think the Supreme Court can be involved (as they say, "controversies in which the United states shall be a party"). That's at least clearly the case for "The United States vs. The Seretech Corporation" given the title.
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.
Zazen
They don't create laws, but they create precedent for how the courts will enforce the laws. If they say that they're going to stop enforcing laws unless certain conditions are met (a miranda reading, a free lawyer, etc.), then that's just what happens. Also note that neither a miranda reading nor a free lawyer are included in the Constitution; the Supreme Court isn't just for debating the Constitution.

And Congress can't "simply" pass an amendment, doing that is a Big Fucking Deal. smile.gif
Ol' Scratch
So is allowing anyone with enough cash to buy off your soverign land and do whatever they like on it, but that didn't seem to stop them. nyahnyah.gif
Zazen
I meant a red tape Big Fucking Deal, not a consequences Big Fucking Deal. wink.gif
Ol' Scratch
I didn't say it wouldn't be. But the moment a single corporation did something or was involved in something ghastly (don't even get me started on the whole Arcology Shutdown) that would show the folly of that stupid, stupid, STUPID decision, Congress would easily get their asses in gear. No one likes to lose power... especially that much power. As if letting the NAN take and keep their territory wasn't bad enough. biggrin.gif
Corywn
QUOTE (Nath)
"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission vs. The Shiawase Corporation."

Okay, expanding on that (and asking more than saying:)

So, there was some situation where USA didn't want any person to just have a nuclear plant in their back yard, but there may just not be any law directly saying "No private party may possess a nuclear reactor," so the US-Supreme said that corps are Extraterritorial, so that they COULD make that designation, but wouldn't piss off corporations.

Maybe?
Crimsondude 2.0
This decision has legitimized a legal fiction literally on the magnitude of the Discovery Doctrine. There is no legal precedent to allow corporations to exercise what is in effect the granting of complete sovereignty over their property. I mean, this isn't an interpretation of the Constitution like read the rights of the accused "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense" (U.S. Const. Amend. VI) means that the government has to provide a public defender to someone who can't afford an attorney. This is a straight-up legal fiction pulled out of thin fucking air. However, let me take a stab at it.

Granted, corporations are allowed to do things that the government can't because of due process (e.g. summarily firing someone without cause). Private entities are also considered state actors for the purposes of exercising traditional, exclusive state functions. Now, take the context of the Court in 2001 (as I mentioned in a previous post). It was filled with a remarkable number of conservatives, with a Bork-like Chief Justice (according the the timeline Rehnquist a) never filled the CJ spot in '86, and b) retired in the early '90s) and the U.S. government wasn't helping the case with the wholesale sell-off of entities that had once-filled traditional, exclusive state roles (namely, the USPS-- which could have been, but was not per se, unconstitutional). While Rehnquist will go down in history as the king of "state action," CJ Tyrell and crew seem to have upped the ante in Shiawase by essentially declaring that there is no such thing as "traditional, exclusive" state action anymore. Why not? Well, private prisons are considered state actors because there have historically been private jails and thus they aren't the exclusive purview of the state, and DP doesn't apply. The same can be said (and probably was) about armed paramilitary security in Seretech. Taking the Seretech decision one step further, and building on the history of power companies being sufficiently private actors in spite of their nature as regulated monopolies it is a small step to allow Shiawase to construct a nuclear power plant for its own private purposes beyond the interference of the NRC.
Likewise, the granting of extraterritoriality would probably be rooted a great deal in historical precedent (and this goes into a situation where SCOTUS has begun to cite to foreign jurisprudence) where historically corporations have in the past been allowed extraterritorial authority to operate in the state's stead (e.g. British colonial corps in America and India; extraterritoriality in China preceding the Boxer Rebellion). Given that the state (Britain) would be the sovereign over the land in question (enter the Discovery Doctrine), then by granting such extensive authority, there would be a case for corporations to exercise extraterritorial power domestically. And while the corporations of such a size that they could exercise extraterritoriality are chartered in a state and are not only engaged in interstate commerce, but international commerce the federal government's role in interstate and foreign commerce can be (and in this case, was) read narrowly in Art. I to ensure the free flow of commerce (Holmes' "stream of commerce") and protect interference by the states.
Likewise the historical precedents in which a corporation is given immunity from liability (e.g., the debate regarding the MTBE immunity in the federal Energy bill) and the theory of sovereign immunity (which most states abolished at common law only to have it enacted as statute) could allow for corporations to be granted virtually complete immunity from all liability on their property if they are acting as an effective sovereign on said property.

However, this requires a giant stretch to put all of the pieces together to get a result so remarkable as the Shiawase decision (IIRC, it was not only based on precedents similar to Seretech, but it produced years of litigation and clarification) out of SCOTUS, and especially one which is supposedly conservative (ie. strict constructionist) but yet would stretch so far beyond the words of the Constitution to allow the effective creation of sovereigns in the U.S.

That said, the fact that it was a 120+ page decision is telling, but not shocking. I'm reading a 96-page state supreme court decision in my spare time which reads like a textbook on civil procedures and evidence (and what NOT to do), but that is also the biggest case in state history. For a case like this, 120 pages indicates that this case was a living, breathing monster (and should have taken at least a decade just to get to the point where SCOTUS would hear it). If anything, I think that putting it at 2001 given its history (I believe it began around 95-96) is too early (especially given the technical facts involved in the case), but it also reeks of such liberal construction to shock the conscience, and I wonder how much thinking went into this given that it is a foundational fact for which the entire SR universe rests upon.
Crimsondude 2.0
QUOTE (Corywn @ Nov 28 2003, 09:29 PM)
QUOTE (Nath)
"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission vs. The Shiawase Corporation."

Okay, expanding on that (and asking more than saying:)

So, there was some situation where USA didn't want any person to just have a nuclear plant in their back yard, but there may just not be any law directly saying "No private party may possess a nuclear reactor," so the US-Supreme said that corps are Extraterritorial, so that they COULD make that designation, but wouldn't piss off corporations.

Maybe?


Well, there are a great number of private entities which have built and operate nulcear power plants and I'm sure that the NRC could figure out a way to deny them a license without violating their due process (even though the corps can violate its users due process rights).

This was also probably a successful attack on the federal government's authority to regulate nulcear energy (which explains why in my world, Shiwase Atomics HQ in DeeCee is in the former DoE HQ).
Synner
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ Nov 29 2003, 03:48 AM)
If anything, I think that putting it at 2001 given its history (I believe it began around 95-96) is too early (especially given the technical facts involved in the case), but it also reeks of such liberal construction to shock the conscience, and I wonder how much thinking went into this given that it is a foundational fact for which the entire SR universe rests upon.

Although I agree with what you're saying to a point (ie. I too think the SCOTUS decision is placed way too early chronologically both in terms of the general state of affairs and megacorp influence - which only really comes into its own in the late Twenties) there is one point which people are overlooking.

The SR timeline branches from our own in the mid-Nineties. The context of the Seretech Decision is based on a US where there are food riots in the US in 1998! The general state of the nation is completely different from today's (for the worse). The government is far more desperate and the corps have far more power and influence. Hence the Resource Rush and the trigger events for SAIM.

And while the RIAA has little pull with Congress and might not be setting precendents there are already precedents against anti-trust/monopoly and armed corporate security in the US, Canada and the EU that should make constitutional pundits blush. In the US most of these are currently in the energy and oil fields but it is spreading into a number of other utilities and basics service sectores like health and prison management.

The legal context and precedent however remains conditioned by the political and economical context and that is exactly where the Shadowrun timeline is differs.

QUOTE (NMAth)
QUOTE (Synner)
A combined reading of Woobly and Chromed Accountant's introductory comments on pages 10-12.

No way. They say megacorps have extraterritoriality, they say megacorps have subsidiaries. They never say extraterritoriality apply to subsidiaries.

You are correct. I misread Wobbly's "Omnidome Theatre" example (thought it was a subsidiary rather than part of the mother corp), although Chromed Accountant's "Corporate Divisions" comments suggest that subsidiaries are considered an integral part of the mother corp which would in turn suggests that the rights of said corp extend to its component elements.

I'll dig out my Corp Shadowfiles tonight and check through that.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Regardless it took almost 40 years after that for "practically every other country in the world" to sign on to the BRA (2042).

In 2042, the Corporate Court invited most nations to support a standard of extraterritoriality. And that was called the BRA. It took 40 years to decide to create the BRA, not to sign it. According to the Corporate Download, "before long [after the Shiawase Decision], the corps had initated events that precipated similar rulings in most major nations."

Actually it was "[...]over the next ten years, similar rulings were made in most other First World countries[...], however these were just rulings, legislation and pratical scenarios would have to follow and in fact in those early days "[...] At first the Shiawase Decision only applied extraterritoriality to certain corporate sites under conditions set down by the Supreme Court", this would change with time as "[...]a large number of restrictions have since been nibbled away by corp-sponsored decisions".

What I was trying to say was that it wasn't an all or nothing decision. It was a gradual process. It began as something far more limited and evolved into the standard of extraterritoriality we all know and hate over a long period of time. That standard is what took 40 years to pass into law in the form of the BRA.
nezumi
QUOTE (Synner)
The SR timeline branches from our own in the mid-Nineties. The context of the Seretech Decision is based on a US where there are food riots in the US in 1998!

I'd argue they branch before that, although the PUBLISH timeline splits off then. The first book I *BELIEVE* came out in 1988? So the people at the time were looking at a timeline with 15 more years before now and then. Its heavily based off of cyberpunk which came out before that. In a lot of ways we've gone the oppositte direction from SR. If we pretend that, starting 1988, corporations continue to get larger and less state controlled, that the state continues making public sector industries private and that things like the cold war and post cold war political situation always kept countries busy with pissing matches rather than watching themselves, its a different story.

I like Crimsondude's explanation a lot, it sounds very official. If I'm reading it right, the decision was just a further blurring of whats public and private, giving some private public protections and powers.

Fortune
QUOTE (nezumi)
The first book I *BELIEVE* came out in 1988?

[nitpick]1989![/nitpick] smile.gif
Crimsondude 2.0
Actually I'd argue that it diverged as early as 1986. In the SR timeline, CJ Burger didn't retire until the early 90s. It was his Real Life retirement in 1986 that led to Rehnquist's appointment as Chief Justice, and the appointment of Antonin Scalia to fill his seat as an Associate Justice. Without that, it allows for a huge distinction to be made between the real Court today (which has had the same composition since 1993) and the one in SR in 2001 because sthe majority of the sitting Justices IRL (Stevens, Rehnquist, Scalia, Clinton's two appointees - Ginsburg and Breyer, and possibly Geo. H.W. Bush's two appointees - Souter and Thomas) wouldn't have been on the Court that decided Seretech and Shiawase. The composition change which IRL took about seven years (1986-93) took about one year in SR, and it was all under one President's watch instead of three IRL.

Given that SR1 was released in 1989, I'd say that it's fair to assume that it should be the bare minimum of where the timelines diverge. And maybe sooner since SR was being developed around the same time as CP2020, which came out before SR1 did.

QUOTE (Synner)
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ Nov 29 2003, 03:48 AM)
If anything, I think that putting it at 2001 given its history (I believe it began around 95-96) is too early (especially given the technical facts involved in the case), but it also reeks of such liberal construction to shock the conscience, and I wonder how much thinking went into this given that it is a foundational fact for which the entire SR universe rests upon.

Although I agree with what you're saying to a point (ie. I too think the SCOTUS decision is placed way too early chronologically both in terms of the general state of affairs and megacorp influence - which only really comes into its own in the late Twenties) there is one point which people are overlooking.

The SR timeline branches from our own in the mid-Nineties. The context of the Seretech Decision is based on a US where there are food riots in the US in 1998! The general state of the nation is completely different from today's (for the worse). The government is far more desperate and the corps have far more power and influence. Hence the Resource Rush and the trigger events for SAIM.

...

The legal context and precedent however remains conditioned by the political and economical context and that is exactly where the Shadowrun timeline is differs.

I agree with you 100% I also tried to preface it with a clear recognition that the political events in the 1980s and 90s in Shadowrun were completely different than they were in reality. Aside from the sell-off context (selling AMTRAK, USPS, etc.) we should step back and look at another fact--Whether anyone agrees that Reaganomics worked IRL, Shadowrun, it clearly failed miserably. The economy in the 80s and 90s still sucked. There was no late 80s boom, and the early 90s recession was in effect a blip in the bigger picture of SR economics. But the economy never picked up in the mid-90s or late 90s. It got worse. The U.S. government never cut deficit spending and we never had a balanced budget. Instead, the FedGov began selling off parts of itself to corps for revenue (I don't imagine the rest of the world was doing much better). Then the Teamsters strike in New York, which caused the food riots which eventually led to Seretech. One of the interesting things is that in the CorpSec Handbook, there is a reference to the Antiterrotist Act of 1996/7. The real one was in 1996, and the context of what led to that Act (terrorism (obviously), and the increasing militarization of corporate security according CSH) doesn't paint a rosy picture of America in the Shadowrun 90s because the vision was basically of the dark days of the early 80s when crime and unemployment were up and the economy looked like another depression was en route (see also, The 1970s), and OBTW, the Japanese were buying up every f'ing thing they could get their hands on.

I can easily see the corps creating enclaves and corporate cities--which still exist, BTW in these troubled times. I believe it was Corp Shadowfiles which mentioned Disney's city in Florida.

And then, in the midst of all of this arise the legal facts which led to the Shiawase decision. I can easily see Congress having given the corps certain privileges and immunities to facilitate the purchase of the various government agencies (e.g. complete immunity from liability to whoever bought AMTRAK). After all, this is a Congress which a year later created the legal conditions to initiate the Resource Rush, and effectively subverted its own sovereignty over government and tribal lands to the corporations.

The political conditions are there to allow the creation of extraterritorial enclaves. I just find it hard to believe that it's rooted in a Constitutional right beyond the scope of Congress to change. It should have been a political decision for Congress to grant, and not the Supreme Court.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012