[grid_roamer]

I disagree. The whole concept of a corporation in Shadowrun is that it have something to fear if it gets caught doing something illegal. Otherwise it wouldn't hire deniable shadowrunners and we wouldn't get to play.

That "something" is not necessarily a trial in the local court of justice. Corporate Shadowfiles and subsequent corporate sourcebook rather point at the Corporate Court rule #2 "You break it, pay for it" as the main issue for megacorporations who don 't cover their track appropriately.

That 'something' illigal that is applied to the majority (more than 90%) of the population does not apply to the corporate system in Shadowrun. Thay have a process that punishes for not acting in their interests legality is not the primary agenda. Especially when it is not enjoyed by the genearal population...

The fact that a runner system even exist is to trivialize the constitutional law process in any area the corporate system is allowed operate.

[Lusis]

I disagree. The whole concept of a corporation in Shadowrun is that it have something to fear if it gets caught doing something illegal. Otherwise it wouldn't hire deniable shadowrunners and we wouldn't get to play.

That "something" is not necessarily a trial in the local court of justice. Corporate Shadowfiles and subsequent corporate sourcebook rather point at the Corporate Court rule #2 "You break it, pay for it" as the main issue for megacorporations who don 't cover their track appropriately.

That 'something' illigal that is applied to the majority (more than 90%) of the population does not apply to the corporate system in Shadowrun. Thay have a process that punishes for not acting in their interests legality is not the primary agenda. Especially when it is not enjoyed by the genearal population...

The fact that a runner system even exist is to trivialize the constitutional law process in any area the corporate system is allowed operate.

Sure, but is it an attitude of, "let the corps kill each other, as long as they leve the rest of us alone." If it is, then there must be some other agenda/responsibility when it comes to legitimate functions of government.

ETA: The flip-side of extraterritoriality is that the .gov no longer carries an obligation to get in the middle the corp's catfights. As long as they keep it off the street, the politicians and bureaucrats don't have to worry about getting beat-up by the media and their constituents. They can simply rake in tax money and maintain power.

[Magnaric]

I agree with The Wyrm Ouroboros here. If corporations actually had 100%, complete undeniable control and power, they wouldn't need nations. They'd simply keep purchasing territory until they BECAME the nations.

They have small standing armies, yes, and the ability and capital to raise forces for a conflict zone, if they deem it profitable. But that's the key point here - profit. The difference between nations and corporations, at least ideologically, is what they strand for. Nations usually try to/pretend to have principles, and will go out of their way to stand up for those...at least some of the time. Yes, some of the time often means as little as they can get away with and still keep a positive public image, but I digress.

Corporations can be relied upon to look at the bottom line first. If they are making money, they'll do whatever they have to to continue to do so. If that means keeping people and nations happy, providing them with things they need and/or want, then so be it. A happy consumer is one that spends money to stay happy, so keeping people content(or at the least blissfully ignorant to their unhappiness) is in a corporation's best interest.

Now, as to extraterritoriality, I can't really explain better what has already been said. It makes sense that in a nation, for the privilege of being able to effectively control and police their own facilities and territory, they would have to pay taxes on said territory, based on a number of factors such as location, space, proximity to public areas and services, possible hazards in said territory, etc. Now, obviously if they're experimenting with explosive compounds or secret nanoviruses or something, they A) would likely not do it at a facility next to an elementary school, and B) would probably not let the public/nation know about it anyway, instead label and bill the facility as something much more innocuous. Hence, lower taxes.

Of course this assumes that the territory is only leased/rented from the government that owns it, and not purchased wholesale. But the reason I see this as more likely is because I think few first-world nations would allow a permanent purchase of land inside their own borders, that could potentially be used against them at a later date.

I see the territory thing much like a foreign embassy on political steroids. It's technically under control and jurisdiction of the group that "owns" it, but there ARE circumstances that could cause a megacorp to have that territory revoked. Like, say, if it became known that a facility in Philadelphia was doing highly illegal chemical testing on UCAS citizens without their consent or knowledge. Something like that would not only make the corporation lose a TON of money/consumers, but there would be a massive political shitstorm possibly up-to-and-including the corporate court/UCAS revoking said territory and kicking them out of that facility.

Anyways, /end rant. Just my perspective on things.

[grid_roamer]

I disagree. The whole concept of a corporation in Shadowrun is that it have something to fear if it gets caught doing something illegal. Otherwise it wouldn't hire deniable shadowrunners and we wouldn't get to play.

That "something" is not necessarily a trial in the local court of justice. Corporate Shadowfiles and subsequent corporate sourcebook rather point at the Corporate Court rule #2 "You break it, pay for it" as the main issue for megacorporations who don 't cover their track appropriately.

That 'something' illigal that is applied to the majority (more than 90%) of the population does not apply to the corporate system in Shadowrun. Thay have a process that punishes for not acting in their interests legality is not the primary agenda. Especially when it is not enjoyed by the genearal population...

The fact that a runner system even exist is to trivialize the constitutional law process in any area the corporate system is allowed operate.

Sure, but is it an attitude of, "let the corps kill each other, as long as they leve the rest of us alone." If it is, then there must be some other agenda/responsibility when it comes to legitimate functions of government.

ETA: The flip-side of extraterritoriality is that the .gov no longer carries an obligation to get in the middle the corp's catfights. As long as they keep it off the street, the politicians and bureaucrats don't have to worry about getting beat-up by the media and their constituents. They can simply rake in tax money and maintain power.

The legitimate responsibility of any government is to the people they govern.
Weather they have any infuence over another nation/state/group or not. If they have no influence then it is either open hostility, nogiation or simply as you said, 'let them kill each other'....
What is not being addressed is the failure of the governments/corporate courts to govern the general population. Primarily being casused by the corporate courts dominate position of their own interests.
Hence the existance of sprawls, armed runners and gangs roaming the streets and ecological disasters making most the the shadowrun world uninhabitable on its surface.

[Sengir]

Shadowrun corporations don't enact law and don't apply them before the local government or the Corporate Court give them the right to do so

Uh huh, so your whole concept of statehood hinges on the question whether an entity was first recognized by an international/-corporate body and then enacted its own laws or vice versa. While certainly creative, this is not exactly the scientific consensus.

Or, tl;dr: don't think that 'extraterritoriality' means 'complete corporate freedom'.

TL:DR: "Extraterritorial" means "not on the nations soil any more". Corps are not like diplomatic missions, which are exempted from the host nation's laws by international treaties but otherwise still inside that nation. They have their own territory, laws, population, currency, ability to enter in international dealings (like letting the UCAS clean out their arcology), and everything else required by any statehood theory (except Nath's, admittedly).
And indeed that means nation states are pretty shitty places, all they govern are the poor masses which the corps have no interest in and the companies which have are not (yet)  big enough to start their own gig. Welcome to cyberpunk.

[Lusis]

And indeed that means nation states are pretty shitty places, all they govern are the poor masses which the corps have no interest in and the companies which have are not (yet)  big enough to start their own gig. Welcome to cyberpunk.

Yes cyberpunk is supposed to be dystopian; however, it gets to be so focused on one viewpoint (corporations are bad, m'kay) that it ignores that there is a bigger world, and reality is far more nuanced and detailed. The relationship in the SR metaverse between government, corporations and the greater populace is something that needs to be explored IMO.

ETA: Some of the best dystopian science fiction ever written (Philip K. Dick, Aldous Huxley, etc) is focused on the greater control of the masses.

[CanRay]

Take into consideration the voices used for the books, however.  Maybe this will change with the novels, which can be in any voice.

[Nath]

Shadowrun corporations don't enact law and don't apply them before the local government or the Corporate Court give them the right to do so

Uh huh, so your whole concept of statehood hinges on the question whether an entity was first recognized by an international/-corporate body and then enacted its own laws or vice versa. While certainly creative, this is not exactly the scientific consensus.

I wasn't discussing whether megacorporations could be considered state or not, I was discussing whether megacorporations can be considered sovereign. Statehood does not imply sovereignty, hence why sovereign is used as an adjective to qualify some states.

I also never referred to the Corporate Court as "recognizing" a megacorporation, moreover in the meaning of "diplomatic recognition". What the Corporate Court does is:
- rates corporations as A, AA or AAA
- requires all BRA signatory states to comply with the treaty, which means not enforcing local laws and regulations inside AA and AAA facilities that match the criterions set by local regulation, and accepting AA and AAA-issued SIN.

It is the Corporate Court rating and threats that makes it possible in the first place for a megacorporation to ignore local laws and freely makes up it own (I say "freely" because otherwise, any corporation can even nowadays enact "laws" to forbid wearing tie on Friday, or attribute parking spaces, or whatever).

You could have had a legitimate objection and compare this to the case of protectorate, established under the protection of the Corporate Court but obtaining sovereignty nonetheless. I disagree because the existing agreements between the corporation, the Corporate Court and the signatory countries provide the corporations' authority can be restricted or ended, which precludes sovereignty and only established autonomy.

The Corporate Court can downgrade a megacorporation to A rating at any time (it happened to Spinrad Industries, it almost happened to Kondorchid in Ghost Cartels). A government can change its local regulation regarding extraterritoriality (like the much more restrictive versions in effect in Quebec and Switzerland).
If that happens, and a megacorporation shows its willingness to ignore the Corporate Court and/or the government decision and its capability to successfully repel any attempt to enforce national law, then, yes, it will have demonstrated sovereignty.

But SR lore contains so far no reference I know of to any megacorporation ever doing that in a single country, let alone in every countries it has assets in at once (while it contains at least two cases of AAA submitting to national decisions and returning their "territory").

Besides, I expect the Corporate Court to want its decision to be meaningful, and thus promptly makes sure that if it says a corporation should no longer benefit from extraterritoriality, it likely won't let it clinge on that privilege for long.

TL:DR: "Extraterritorial" means "not on the nations soil any more". Corps are not like diplomatic missions, which are exempted from the host nation's laws by international treaties but otherwise still inside that nation. They have their own territory, laws, population, currency, ability to enter in international dealings (like letting the UCAS clean out their arcology), and everything else required by any statehood theory (except Nath's, admittedly).

"Extraterritorial" actually only means "outside the territory", which has two different uses. The first use covers the application of a state's law outside its territory (such as judging pirates for act committed in international waters). The second use covers persons or places that are considered to be outside the territory for the application of law (thus usually not subject to it).

If you go for strict etymology, it doesn't refer at all to nation. If you go for the actual definition, it doesn't refer to soil, but to territory at large, including territorial waters.

The key part is what is not in the definition. Extraterritorial does not mean "outside one territory and inside another". Extraterritoriality is not annexation. The state that grants extraterritoriality to a part of its territory does retain sovereignty, denying the beneficiary from claiming it.

The very fact that all corporate holdings are referred to as extraterritorial and just as territory would actually imply that corporations do not have any of the territory required by some definition of statehood.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

Or, tl;dr: don't think that 'extraterritoriality' means 'complete corporate freedom'.

TL:DR: "Extraterritorial" means "not on the nations soil any more". Corps are not like diplomatic missions, which are exempted from the host nation's laws by international treaties but otherwise still inside that nation. They have their own territory, laws, population, currency, ability to enter in international dealings (like letting the UCAS clean out their arcology), and everything else required by any statehood theory (except Nath's, admittedly).
And indeed that means nation states are pretty shitty places, all they govern are the poor masses which the corps have no interest in and the companies which have are not (yet)  big enough to start their own gig. Welcome to cyberpunk.

... you're kidding, right?  'Exempted from' is precisely what it means.  Are you saying France doesn't have its own territory, laws, population, currency, and ability to enter into international dealings, and that the extraterritorial embassy just up the street isn't precisely the same?  AA and AAA corporations are intensely interested in those 'poor masses' - because those 'poor masses' are where they make their money.  That's the consumer base for them.

Renraku didn't 'allow' the UCAS Army to 'clean out' the Arcology; the Army walked in on a meeting of the Metroplex Corporate Council and said, "We're in charge here now.  Turn that recorder off."  The UCAS took it over, because it had three nuclear devices in the basement that were no longer under Renraku's control.  It was only after Crash 2.0 that Renraku looked at the profit/loss margin on the place and said, "We're going to default on the pay-back for cleaning house there, and surrender it to you.  TTFN."

Extraterritoriality holds a meaning equivalent to 'by my nation's laws until we're doing something that threatens the host nation's people'.  Not doing the latter is implicit in the extraterritoriality agreement, and proving that they have is in part what shadowrunners hired by a corporate agency do.  Shiawase is storing toxic material inappropriately at their Los Bathos facility?  Have the EPA hire shadowrunners to get proof.  Likewise, if a corporate facility is selling to the host nation's individuals, it is supposed to pay taxes to the host nation on the profit made - but corporations claim all sorts of things, which means the IRS hires shadowrunners (or just its own agents) to go in and get documented proof about how much profit is being made by a site, regional HQ, whatever.

This doesn't mean I think that nations are the big dogs in the Shadowrun world; they aren't.  This is why we always have a Corporate book first, and a nations book if we get around to it.  But the dystopia of cyberpunk is less 'corporations control' than it is 'the top 0.01% of the social strata controls'.  Or do you think that corporate sweatshops don't still exist, and that the AA- and AAA-rated corporations somehow treat their lowest-level citizens any better (or much better) than the A-rated corp down the road?

[grid_roamer]

So the Shadowrun world setting is not a crappy place to live. And corporations are pro populace?

[Angelone]

They have to be somewhat, if no one has any money or everybody just plain hates the corps they'll end up losing in the end. An admittedly not perfect example is look how people turned on Ares after the Excalibur.

[grid_roamer]

They have to be somewhat, if no one has any money or everybody just plain hates the corps they'll end up losing in the end. An admittedly not perfect example is look how people turned on Ares after the Excalibur.

I will admit  overall they are more democratic, if even just a bit so than than eairler in the timeline. But it's my opinion that it is due to Nations operating to make the relationship more so.

The PCC's National Corporate Caucus system is a unique approach im interested in roleplaying a drama within...
Is it a coincidence that they share a border with the UCAS who has been accused of being a bit too middle of the road dealing with corporations?

[Nath]

TL:DR: "Extraterritorial" means "not on the nations soil any more". Corps are not like diplomatic missions, which are exempted from the host nation's laws by international treaties but otherwise still inside that nation. They have their own territory, laws, population, currency, ability to enter in international dealings (like letting the UCAS clean out their arcology), and everything else required by any statehood theory (except Nath's, admittedly).

... you're kidding, right?  'Exempted from' is precisely what it means.  Are you saying France doesn't have its own territory, laws, population, currency, and ability to enter into international dealings, and that the extraterritorial embassy just up the street isn't precisely the same?

As far as I understand, what he meant is that corporate extraterritorial enclaves are different diplomatic extraterritorial enclaves, because the former gives to megacorporations things that the latter doesn't give to other entities.

Indeed, an entity indeed must have at least the ability to enter in international dealings prior to getting a diplomatic extraterritorial enclaves. States already having a population, a territory and all the other attribute of statehood before getting any diplomatic enclaves, the comparison would be pointless. Entities that do get the ability to enter in international dealings without having a territory or a population beforehand are called international organizations. Which also have laws (albeit not sovereign law) and can issue travel documents to a population of employees. They could probably have a currency if they wanted to (as any group of two persons can). They don't have a territory, and claiming sovereignty over the extraterritorial enclave that has been granted to them would trigger a diplomatic crisis.

An entity that gets a corporate extraterritorial enclaves may not need the ability to enter in international dealings, since the status has been negotiated between the host nation and the Corporate Court. It can have laws. It can issue travel documents to a population of employees, and can have a currency. And for some reasons, Sengir considers that it can and does claim corporate extraterritorial enclave as its sovereign territory.

So as far as I can understand his line of reasoning, corporate extraterritorial enclaves must be different from diplomatic extraterritorial enclaves because they are sovereign territories.

[Sengir]

I wasn't discussing whether megacorporations could be considered state or not, I was discussing whether megacorporations can be considered sovereign. Statehood does not imply sovereignty, hence why sovereign is used as an adjective to qualify some states.

"Sovereign" is used to differ these states from members of a commonwealth or union. Basically, if the state can handle its international dealings by itself (which basically means "it does and others accept it"), it's sovereign. Do extraterritorial corps do that? Well, I can't remember anthing saying that corps always need to take the detour over the CC. And even if they did, that would basically make "The Corps" a sovereign state, and individual corps members of the union.

and that the extraterritorial embassy just up the street isn't precisely the same?

Embassies/diplomatic missions are not extraterritorial. The "organization" is exempted from local laws, but that does not make it separate territory. Think of it like renting a house: Your landlord probably does not have the right to enter it, but that does not make you the owner and your lease can be terminated.

And  I'm at loss where you got the idea that I claimed a nation state does not posses territory, populace, etc..

[Nath]

"Sovereign" is used to differ these states from members of a commonwealth or union. Basically, if the state can handle its international dealings by itself (which basically means "it does and others accept it"), it's sovereign. Do extraterritorial corps do that? Well, I can't remember anthing saying that corps always need to take the detour over the CC. And even if they did, that would basically make "The Corps" a sovereign state, and individual corps members of the union.

Multinational corporations can, even nowadays, also engage in commercial contracts with sovereign states that don't qualify as international treaties. The agreement between Knight Errant and Seattle for law enforcement for instance, must be a commercial contract (as if it was a treaty, only the UCAS federal government could have signed it).

One thing that cannot be covered by a commercial contract is the extradition process. But it's not specified if each megacorporation and each nation needs to sign their own extradition accord, or if the Business Recognition Accords covered it once for all megacorporations.

However, this does not imply sovereignty. International organizations can also enter international treaties, and are not considered sovereign. The International Criminal Court can for instance require extradition from state parties.

The differential diagnosis would be that if it can enter international treaties and has a territory, it's a sovereign state ; if it can enter treaties but has no territory, it's an international organization.

But to complicate things a bit, there actually one case of a sovereign international organization, that does not have territory: the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which has treaties, diplomatic missions and issue passports, and at some point even had an air force, though its actual control over it could be questioned).

To me, the ability that states retain to alter which area qualify for corporate extraterritoriality (and effectively do so in several occasions) precludes those from being considered as corporate sovereign territory.

It would make more sense for megacorporations to be considered as sovereign organizations like the Order of Malta. To me, the main issue remains that the Corporate Court charter a corporation must have adhered to obtain megacorporate status contain provisions for it to be revoked. "Temporary sovereignty" would be odd as a legal concept, to say the least.