Not smuggling - declaring banned items when entering high law level

[Condottiere]

Planets tend to move in predictable orbits, except for Ceti Alpha Five.

Any flight corridors would be set up decades in advance, and would compensate for celestial movements of the starport, the planet and the solar system.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You don't see the contradiction? You can't have both planetary law rules out to 100D and Imperial rules everywhere.

Local system home-rule is specifically superseded by Imperial law in specific circumstances, such as starports and travelling ships. No, I do not see the contradiction.

By your logic we can't have extraterritorial starports either?

 

[Condottiere]

Hong Kong has an extraterritorial railway station.

 

[phavoc]

You don't see the contradiction? You can't have both planetary law rules out to 100D and Imperial rules everywhere.

Local system home-rule is specifically superseded by Imperial law in specific circumstances, such as starports and travelling ships. No, I do not see the contradiction.

By your logic we can't have extraterritorial starports either?

I suppose we can agree to disagree here. To me it's a glaring contradiction. Then again I suppose we are looking at it from different angles. I'm very aware of the nuances between multiple government jurisdictions and the fact that they can co-exist and also where they don't.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I suppose we can agree to disagree here.

Certainly.

 

[HalC]

What is perhaps being ignored in all of this is one itsy teensy detail...

Laws and Treaties etc.

For example, what happens should a world decide that armed merchant ships are illegal? Shipboard lasers are definitely higher powered than laser rifles no? Perhaps the local rules for where ships can fly through air space would also apply.

Then there is the issue of what laws does a starship captain apply within the confines of his hull at any given time? Today's modern laws regarding the territoriality of the flagging of a ship would give a hint no?

So, simply stated - ships in transit to an imperial starport have to have some rights to land within the confines of the port itself without interference by the locals. On the flip side, treaties negotiated with a world's government would hold sway over the actions of both signatories to the treaty.

Now, let's throw a curveball into this equation:

Suppose the local government with whom the treaty was enacted, is deposed by a local coup? Suppose the new government tries to tell the Imperium to take a hike with respect to contractual obligations and debts etc - that the new government wants to say it doesn't own now that the old government is gone? Does ANYTHING within the Traveller rules sets from any publication or system - tell the GM what happens then? Hell, does it even say what is the difference between a world that was conquered and brought into the Imperium vs a world that voted to join? There has to be SOME difference right?

In the end? It is up to the GM to make head/tails out of the mess that evolved over the past 40+ years of game evolution.

Starports may very well have to obey certain air traffic laws established by the world's government by right of treaty. By right of treaty, worlds have to respect territoriality laws of the Imperium. And when things get sticky, woe be unto either the planetary government or the Imperial representative - who violates the treaty. Imagine a red zone being slapped upon a world because things got bad enough for that to occur. Imagine that once slapped upon a world, it takes MONTHS before it can be lifted, possibly even years? Imagine ONE government willing or foolish enough to risk that knowing that such a red zone classification could be made relatively permanent. Then imagine what it takes to enforce a red zone and ask "Are you willing to tangle with a strike force sent to enforce a red zone proclamation knowing that to fire upon one Imperial Naval vessel is to fire upon them all?

Your call. Truth is - I've always wondered what happens should a world decide it no longer wishes to be deemed an Imperial puppet. I've wondered how the concept of separate but equal governments in the form of subsector Dukes even works *teasing grin* with the laws as written. Either the Imperium is supreme or it isn't. Hell, as can be found elsewhere, I've often wondered what the difference is between an Imperial Citizen and an Imiperial Subject (after all, if something is not a capital offence under Imperial Law, but a capital offence under planetary law - are those who are bound by planetary law even Imperial Citizens?)

In the end, you as GM, make it work. Even GURPS NOBLES failed to do a decent job (in my opinion) and often created something I looked at, and said with a flat tone of voice... "Um, no."

 

[Anonymous]

What is perhaps being ignored in all of this is one itsy teensy detail...

Laws and Treaties etc.

For example, what happens should a world decide that armed merchant ships are illegal? Shipboard lasers are definitely higher powered than laser rifles no? Perhaps the local rules for where ships can fly through air space would also apply.

I learned from this thread that the Imperium rules the space between the worlds, and the starports.

Therefore you should be fine (within the Imperium) unless you do something within the 100 diameter of a planet that isn't travel directly between a port (high or down) and a jump point.

 

[NOLATrav]

I'm still looking for the reference but ISTR local planetary law extends to 10 diameters, rather than 100. Thus there is a sort of "county line" where Imperial rule ends and local planetary law begins, which is where I usually put the highport if the system has one.

IMTU, if the local world is a satellite, the mother world's diameter determines jurisdiction. Also, planetary authority includes all of a given world's moons, so if there is a far moon at 60 diameters the local authorities have precedence out to 60 diameters plus 10 moon diameters from that far body. But you know, the locals may not be able to patrol that far out, or the local Imp noble may be encroaching on ("supporting") local authorities, or what have you...

Same thing on the ground, Imp ports are generally LL4 IMTU out to the extraterritorial boundary. But certain circumstances may allow tighter or looser regulations across the XT line for a ways, or a district, maybe to reach a waterway or rail line outside the port proper.

I think a blanket "Imperium rules out to 100 diameters" is very bland, I prefer to create a little terrain and texture in the systems.

 

[Condottiere]

Hundred diameters is convenient, since that's the default minimum for a routine warp translation.

Outside of that it's the badlands.

Planetary navies might commit patrol ships to about one hundred and fitly diameters along the normal hyperspace approaches, and jealously within hundred diameters.

 

[phavoc]

What is perhaps being ignored in all of this is one itsy teensy detail...

Laws and Treaties etc.

For example, what happens should a world decide that armed merchant ships are illegal? Shipboard lasers are definitely higher powered than laser rifles no? Perhaps the local rules for where ships can fly through air space would also apply.

Then there is the issue of what laws does a starship captain apply within the confines of his hull at any given time? Today's modern laws regarding the territoriality of the flagging of a ship would give a hint no?

So, simply stated - ships in transit to an imperial starport have to have some rights to land within the confines of the port itself without interference by the locals. On the flip side, treaties negotiated with a world's government would hold sway over the actions of both signatories to the treaty.

Now, let's throw a curveball into this equation:

Suppose the local government with whom the treaty was enacted, is deposed by a local coup? Suppose the new government tries to tell the Imperium to take a hike with respect to contractual obligations and debts etc - that the new government wants to say it doesn't own now that the old government is gone? Does ANYTHING within the Traveller rules sets from any publication or system - tell the GM what happens then? Hell, does it even say what is the difference between a world that was conquered and brought into the Imperium vs a world that voted to join? There has to be SOME difference right?

In the end? It is up to the GM to make head/tails out of the mess that evolved over the past 40+ years of game evolution.

Starports may very well have to obey certain air traffic laws established by the world's government by right of treaty. By right of treaty, worlds have to respect territoriality laws of the Imperium. And when things get sticky, woe be unto either the planetary government or the Imperial representative - who violates the treaty. Imagine a red zone being slapped upon a world because things got bad enough for that to occur. Imagine that once slapped upon a world, it takes MONTHS before it can be lifted, possibly even years? Imagine ONE government willing or foolish enough to risk that knowing that such a red zone classification could be made relatively permanent. Then imagine what it takes to enforce a red zone and ask "Are you willing to tangle with a strike force sent to enforce a red zone proclamation knowing that to fire upon one Imperial Naval vessel is to fire upon them all?

Your call. Truth is - I've always wondered what happens should a world decide it no longer wishes to be deemed an Imperial puppet. I've wondered how the concept of separate but equal governments in the form of subsector Dukes even works *teasing grin* with the laws as written. Either the Imperium is supreme or it isn't. Hell, as can be found elsewhere, I've often wondered what the difference is between an Imperial Citizen and an Imiperial Subject (after all, if something is not a capital offence under Imperial Law, but a capital offence under planetary law - are those who are bound by planetary law even Imperial Citizens?)

In the end, you as GM, make it work. Even GURPS NOBLES failed to do a decent job (in my opinion) and often created something I looked at, and said with a flat tone of voice... "Um, no."

Worlds may temporarily kick out Imperial forces if they can overwhelm them. But they will eventually lose because no single world can withstand the military might of the Imperium. Planetary and Imperial law have overlap in some places. Imperial laws and governance are more of a confederation, where the local states have a great deal of power to enact their own rules. However governance is limited to the 100D, and no planet is allowed to be a mutli-system entity. Therefor their rule extends only as far as the 100D (or really, as far as they can enforce it with ships. Not all planets can afford to patrol that far to lay claim to what is theirs). For the most part the 3rd Imperium is pretty stable border-wise. There are a few pockets that are under potential consideration (like in the Spinward Marches), but other than that it's not expanding under the current game rules. However within the confines of the borders it's kind of a wild west, which allows RPGing but to still have a stable framework.

To your question about ships with lasers and a planetary government that outlaws private ownership of ship-board weaponry. As I understand it under the current rules, that ban would only be applicable to the planet's own citizens. Imperial ships or ships from other worlds touching down at the Imperial starbase would not be required to follow the rule. But the local laws would be in effect if the ship ever left the starport and entered the planet's space. The exception to that rule is that so long as they are travelling TO/FROM the starport they can tell the local planetary navy to take a hike if they want to try and enforce their local prohibition against armed ships. While there need not be specific corridors, the planet, in theory, could define some that requires the ships to transit to/from the starport, and deviance from said corridors would be grounds for an incident. Much like the allies in WW2 used the specified flight corridors to Berlin during the Berlin airlift. The Russians would harass, but never did much more than that to the incoming flights. And the allies kept flying the specified routes with impunity, but also not straying outside of them. I imagine a planet would have the same potential setup if they really hated the Imperium and trade with outsiders. But that would mean economic stagnation as well, so while it's possible, it's not terribly probable over a long period without the planet having some very strong views. And, if there were to be something valuable about the planet who knows if a megacorp or someone else might purchase the services of mercenaries to overthrow the regime, or perhaps smuggle weapons and credits to the local resistance.

 

[phavoc]

Hundred diameters is convenient, since that's the default minimum for a routine warp translation.

Outside of that it's the badlands.

Planetary navies might commit patrol ships to about one hundred and fitly diameters along the normal hyperspace approaches, and jealously within hundred diameters.

Oh, I don't see that in a system that has an industrial base and outworld installations and stations. If it's badlands what is out there supporting the bad people? Unless there is an active resistance going on there has to be something out beyond the primary planet to draw bad people too. Otherwise they will starve and their ships will break down because they can't get spares and repair. That's the misunderstanding about 'badlands' - something has to be there for them to prey upon others so they can exist. Criminals and such do a terrible job at civilization, in general. So without someone to prey upon they either turn upon themselves, disband, go to better areas to raid, get killed by those they are preyed upon, or they settle down and create their own civilization.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Suppose the local government with whom the treaty was enacted, is deposed by a local coup? Suppose the new government tries to tell the Imperium to take a hike with respect to contractual obligations and debts etc - that the new government wants to say it doesn't own now that the old government is gone?

The constitution of the Imperium says:

Article Vlll - Acknowledgment of Imperial Power
Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary contained in this document or in subsequent Imperial actions, the Imperium, for the purpose of ensuring its continued safety and stability, reserves to itself the power to unilaterally enact changes in any or all aspects of the relationship between itself and any member world or citizen.

http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Warrant_of_Restoration

So, the Emperor decides.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

... no planet is allowed to be a mutli-system entity.

Still not true:

Article I - Imperial Governance, Membership, Citizenship

...

The Imperium reserves to itself the power to create as it sees fit Governmental Entities superior to the member worlds but subordinate to the Imperium. This shall include the power to abolish said entities as the Imperium sees fit.

http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Warrant_of_Restoration


That is why we have the government code 6 Captured Government, and multi-system entities such as the Vegan Autonomous District.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

To your question about ships with lasers and a planetary government that outlaws private ownership of ship-board weaponry. As I understand it under the current rules, that ban would only be applicable to the planet's own citizens. Imperial ships or ships from other worlds touching down at the Imperial starbase would not be required to follow the rule. But the local laws would be in effect if the ship ever left the starport and entered the planet's space.

GT Nobles says:

Imperial law applies to all locations where the Imperium has decided it applies, which is not really the circular statement it seems at first. This includes all spacecraft (military and civil) traveling within the Imperium, anything within the extrality line of a starport, ...

I would not use such a silly rule either, but it is canon and hence the default of how the Imperium works.

 

[HalC]

After all the quoting of the Warrant of Restoration (not necessarily a bad thing - I'd have done the same mind you...) there is this one niggling little detail that keeps scratching at the door of my logic construct when it comes to the Imperium...

1) Agent of the Imperium allows for the Imperium via its agents, to sterilize entire worlds.
2) The Imperial Navy stands ready to do just that - sterilize entire worlds as directed.

Either of 1 or 2 constitutes a violation of anything sovereign governments would even consider acceptable. How would the United States feel if say, the European Commonwealth could not only decide to obliterate the United States, but had the means to do so. Care to bet that the US might be less friendly with the European Union if that fact ever came out? Want to further bet that after ONE such world was sterilized, that the rest of the worlds would have second thoughts about voluntary membership? And lest you say "but the navy will keep the secret" - when an entire world gets the red zone treatment, you honestly think no one is going to want to find out why?

So, if Agent of the Imperium is Marc's true vision of the Imperium, then all the questions debated at the various forums are going to have to take a hard look at what the man who wrote the AotI wrote for the novel versus what he wrote for the game universe versus what he's written in T5, etc.

 

[Condottiere]

I believe that the Vegan Autonomous District is a client state.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

1) Agent of the Imperium allows for the Imperium via its agents, to sterilize entire worlds.
2) The Imperial Navy stands ready to do just that - sterilize entire worlds as directed.

Either of 1 or 2 constitutes a violation of anything sovereign governments would even consider acceptable.

Only the Imperium is a sovereign state, the members are only provinces. The Imperium is not a democracy.
Article 8 states that the Imperium "reserves to itself the power to unilaterally enact changes in any or all aspects of the relationship between itself and any member world or citizen". I can't see that this excludes total sterilisation.

How would the United States feel if say, the European Commonwealth could not only decide to obliterate the United States, but had the means to do so. Care to bet that the US might be less friendly with the European Union if that fact ever came out?

Not comparable, since the USA is not a province of the EU.

A comparable situation would be if the USA decides to sterilise a provincial area somewhere, e.g. the Bikini atoll.

Want to further bet that after ONE such world was sterilized, that the rest of the worlds would have second thoughts about voluntary membership?

Membership is not voluntary. Any world may join the Imperium by Article 1, but they cannot secede, they would have to petition the Emperor to release them by Article 8.

 

[HalC]

Membership is not voluntary. Can't argue that one - right?

Yet - if that is the case, then why are these so called provinces permitted to impose a death penalty while others do not, and yet other worlds are permitted to have rules and regulations that strip Imperial Citizens of certain rights?

Somewhere, there is a disconnect...

 

[phavoc]

... no planet is allowed to be a mutli-system entity.

Still not true:

Article I - Imperial Governance, Membership, Citizenship

...

The Imperium reserves to itself the power to create as it sees fit Governmental Entities superior to the member worlds but subordinate to the Imperium. This shall include the power to abolish said entities as the Imperium sees fit.

http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Warrant_of_Restoration


That is why we have the government code 6 Captured Government, and multi-system entities such as the Vegan Autonomous District.

You may want to go and look up vegan district. It's a client state, not part of the Imperium. So it would seem that's not true either.

Wanna try again?

 

[phavoc]

To your question about ships with lasers and a planetary government that outlaws private ownership of ship-board weaponry. As I understand it under the current rules, that ban would only be applicable to the planet's own citizens. Imperial ships or ships from other worlds touching down at the Imperial starbase would not be required to follow the rule. But the local laws would be in effect if the ship ever left the starport and entered the planet's space.

GT Nobles says:

Imperial law applies to all locations where the Imperium has decided it applies, which is not really the circular statement it seems at first. This includes all spacecraft (military and civil) traveling within the Imperium, anything within the extrality line of a starport, ...

I would not use such a silly rule either, but it is canon and hence the default of how the Imperium works.

You continue to ignore the other part of this. Imperial law specifically excludes planetary jurisdiction. You know, all the other citations that state planetary laws are Supreme on the planet outside of imperial territory.

Its rather clear, to me at least, the laws have overlap, and while imperial laws are Supreme, they are neither omnipresent nor does the imperium decide on a whim what laws to uphold when and where. If you look at history you will see kings and emperors who did this to their subject nobles and lost their lives over that when they were overthrown.

The citation you have there clearly states planetary law is Supreme on a planet outside of the imperial star port. But it then provides the contradiction for space. Planets rule extends out to 100d, but imperial law applies to spacecraft traveling anywhere. And therein lies the crux of the argument. Two rules in the books that contradict.

You can choose to interpret it how you choose.