I agree with Jim, as to the difference between law and edict being largely one of semantics. At the end of the day and from the POV of the Average Siphon In The Corridor, the is no effective difference between laws passed by a theoretically representative legislature, confirmed by an independent court system and enforced by an elected executive with those promulgated by an Emperor beholden to maintaining the good will of the aristocracy that actually runs "his" Empire and largely enforced by those self-same nobles. As to the objection that the vast distances involved prevent rule-by-precedent, that is frankly nonsense. Not only does Craig himself change his mind on this by the end of his post, the very concept of precedent emerged in an era in which travel times were no greater between the scattered (noble) courts.
I *do* agree that Admiralty Courts would administer Imperial justice in those areas under direct Naval control (such as the Five Sisters Subsector of the Marches) and that individual IN ship commanders would do so in areas completely outside the Imperium. I would only add that (at least IMTU) most Imperial trials are held at the SPA port closest to the scene of offense. This reinforces the proported nature of the Empire (a realm based on trade) while simultaneously making the trial as open to the public as possible (the Empire must be SEEN to be just in its judgements).
This model of Imperial power is particularly true if using the HRE's Imperial Diet as our model for the system. I suggest that the Emperor can't do much of any effect without the support of the Diet/Moot. Even though the Emperor and his Navy are technically independent of the Imperial nobility, their revenue stream still passes through those (many and grasping) hands. Nobody dependent upon taxes collected over such a sprawling area can afford to ignore the interests of the actual tax collectors.
As for the proposition that imperial law doesn’t exist, only imperial edicts, it seems to me that this argument is one of semantics. Granted, we think of law as being legitimized by consensual government, but in any sort of non-consensual government, edicts and laws are essentially the same thing. As for naval officers rending legal judgment, I’d think that this would be delegated to lesser nobles. Part of being a noble in a campaign might be to sit as judge in whatever local cases fall into imperial jurisdiction. As for the edicts themselves, I’d like to see a list if anyone has one.Generally speaking, however, I’d say that Imperial Law focuses on the relationships between the member states (the worlds) moreso than the relationships between individuals. Hence, the crimes that it covers would tend to be crimes that are committed not by individuals so much as governments and megacorps.As for what these crimes might be, here’s a short list:1. Treason2. Failure to pay taxes3. Illegal aggressions against or occupations of other recognized states4. WMD proliferation5. Genocide6. Chattel slavery7. Giving aid to interstellar pirates, terrorists, etc.As for the hierarchy of nobles, I don’t really mind it, although I recognize that it’s probably not all that realistic. Nonetheless, in a universe where political authority is very top-down, it seems arguable that such a hierarchy could be maintained.One of the things I have a problem with in the OTU is all the landless nobles wandering around. In my view, every noble of baronial rank and above should have authority over a fief, and that fief should produce income and pay taxes. Hence, barons and above would be unlikely to stray too far from home.As for baronets, knights, and squires, I could envision them being the sub-landholding class of nobles that roams the stars doing the dirty work of the rest of the nobility. Baronets might be largely administrators and judges. Knights might be commanders of the police and mid-sized naval vessels. Squires could act as intermediaries or be tasked with special missions. The titles of all non-landed nobles would probably be provisional. Landed nobles too might lose their title though mismanagement. I was thinking about calling such stripped nobles knaves, although its arguable as to whether such a derogatory term would be used in an official capacity.As for the offspring of nobles who are in the line of succession, I’ve usually termed them princes or princesses, regardless of the rank which they might inherit. This may be partly due to the fact that many an imperial baron would be, in effect, the governor of a planet or a large section thereof (or, at least, the imperial overseer of such a territory), and hence might be locally called a king, or Kaiser, or tsar, or whatever title is common to that culture.Come to think of it, given the importance of titles in a “government of men”, prince/princess may be just the most generic term for someone who is in the line of succession. I could envision official titles conveying information on how close the person is to holding actual power. "I am Tertice Eneri, third in line to the barony of Foobar. This is my sister, Secundess Eleni. Princess Riga couldn’t attend, but she sends her regards."Granted, this sort of uniformity would be unlikely given the sheer size of the Imperium, but it would be desirable in the sense that titles would actually mean something. If you were dealing with a baron, you’d know you’re dealing with someone who has actual power somewhere, not just somebody who was awarded or inherited an honorary title but has potentially fallen on hard times and is now collecting welfare. To do otherwise, I think, would be to undermine the nobility by accepting a system where their titles are rendered essentially meaningless by handing them out to every Tom, Dick, and Eneri, which, unfortunately, seems to be the case with the OTU. But that’s just my Cr2.----- The Traveller Mailing List Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=CKGWeUlXNVzOv9Ey6KwqX8aXjeTXlVSV