06-21-2013, 06:43 PM | #1 |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Rule by judges
I'm writing up a description of a planet that is occupied by eight colonies (states). The colonies vehemently insist on their mutual independence and several sovereignties, but in practice they co-operate very closely.
There is a Heads of Government meeting every year, and councils of ministers and committees of senior bureaucrats meet from time to time to co-ordinate actions and harmonise policy, and there is constant contact between the bureaucracies at various levels. There are even a few technocratic "joint agencies" for such things as space traffic control, radio frequency allocation, standards &c. There are no restrictions or controls on movement of people, goods, or services between the colonies, and the e.g. health, welfare, and tax systems interoperate. Legislation is negotiated between the ministers of the several colonies, established as treaties, and subject to ratification by the legislatures of the several colonies. The sole institution that actual spans the planet is a judicial organ, which settles disputes arising under the treaties, tortious actions between colonies and persons other than their citizens, international equitable matters, etc. The international courts' writs run everywhere, but there is no international enforcement agency. If a government refuses to comply with an international writ the matter requires political solution. So what do I put for this under "form of government"? "Balkanised"? "Confederation"? "Kritearchy"? "Dikocracy"?
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
06-21-2013, 07:13 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Rule by judges
Not sure how interoperating tax systems work absent a single government. Other than that, sounds like a balkanized world unless the court has extremely strong force of custom.
|
06-21-2013, 07:34 PM | #3 | ||
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: Rule by judges
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
||
06-21-2013, 07:54 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Upper Peninsula of Michigan
|
Re: Rule by judges
My classics major buddy leans toward dikocracy.
I see nothing wrong with calling the planet a de jure multipolar society, and a de facto dikocracy. Given my own nation's experience with the Articles of Confederation, I would fully expect the planet to eventually experience tension between expedience and custom to the extent that the international comity breaks down and the planet must either formally constitutionalize, or move toward a more de facto multipolar system. On the other hand, "eventually" could be a very long time. Europe might be taking baby steps toward it for centuries. |
06-21-2013, 08:54 PM | #5 | ||
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: Rule by judges
Quote:
Quote:
There is practically no external military threat; that relaxes some of the problems that the Continental Congress faced. And centuries of high-tech communications and travel have alloyed a world-wide range of views and attitudes that varies a great deal more with colonies than between colonies. Eight is a small enough group that they could iron out agreements on tariffs and visas ("let's just not have any!") and billing one another for their citizens getting treated in our hospitals ("why bother?"). So the problems aren't as severe as they might be. But no, this isn't supposed to be a good arrangement.
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
||
06-21-2013, 10:52 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Rule by judges
A league of theoretically equal entities without a central authority, but with a common framework for dealing with issues, is classically an amphictyony. Though I first encountered the word in C. J. Cherryh's The Pride of Chanur, I think.
Does the judiciary, whatever you call it, have the power of compulsory process? That is, can they order you to show up and explain yourself, and punish you with outlawry or the like if you stay away? If so, then there is a single state, if an ultraminimal one, and I would also call the whole setup a federation. At the federal level you might call it an ultraminarchy (an ugly coinage, but the most natural derivative of current libertarian terms for that sort of thing), but that implies nothing about the way things work within the member states. You could also call it a united states. Bill Stoddard |
06-21-2013, 11:30 PM | #7 | ||||
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: Rule by judges
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
||||
06-22-2013, 12:09 AM | #8 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
|
Re: Rule by judges
|
06-22-2013, 06:00 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Rule by judges
Quote:
Bill Stoddard |
|
06-22-2013, 06:15 AM | #10 |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: Rule by judges
I took a course in administrative law as part of my training as a bureaucrat, and they were mentioned there.
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
Tags |
flat black |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|