A couple moderately bizarre legal questions regarding the Ley Accords and selling oneself into slavery

For the first question, Chapter I of the Ley Accords bans the use of “Instruments of Regrettable Necessity” including the use of ecocidal weapons on garden worlds even for non-signatories of the Accords in an ecumenical manner as advocated by the Empire in the aftermath of the Burning of Litash. The problem arises in the following hypothetical scenario, The Associated Worlds contacts Civilization A and Civilization B, both societies of consent. For whatever reason A and B hate each other and each others way of life. A says to B “ hey, since we both hate each other, could we both agree to a war of extermination until one of us is extinct and neither of us has to live in a universe where the other exists? “ and B says “sure” and they start throwing WMDs at each other, including ecocidal weapons. Per the Ley Accords which the Empire is a signatory of they are obligated to punish both for violating the Ley Accords even though both sides consented and it’s essentially a civilization level duel, interfering would violate the Fundamental Contract (unless I have somehow misunderstood the Fundamental Contract).

Now this is an unlikely scenario. It’s a ridiculously unlikely scenario. It’s an edge case. It’s a ridiculously unlikely edge case. But if you make a habit of ignoring unlikely but technically possible edge cases because they probably won’t happen you don’t get to complain when Murphy’s law kicks in and you inevitably encounter an edge case of misestimated likelihood, and the Eldrae seem to be too smart and legalistic to ignore the possibility. So is the Empire going to follow the Accords and violate the Fundamental Contract(yeah fat chance I’m only mentioning it for completeness), default on their obligations regarding the Accord(which seems odd since from my understanding they should hate agreeing to promises they potentially can’t keep), or do they have a third option prepared?

Regarding the second question, according to my understanding of Imperial law you can’t own another person. Yet according to my understanding of the the Fundamental Contract any agreement where all parties consent, all parties understand what they are consenting to, and all parties are mentally competent and sane is a valid contract. And people own the entirety of themselves and vice versa, not only is what they own part of themselves but they also own every part of what constitutes themself. And people are allowed to sell what they own. So legally speaking, what’s stopping someone from selling the entirety of themself, not merely a perpetual indentured servitude contract, a true sale of their person akin to chattel, to another person?

Again a ridiculous edge case but as I’ve already elaborated upon, it’s dangerous to ignore edge cases lest you encounter them unprepared. I doubt any traditionally sane Imperials would ever agree to anything like this(and it would likely be an instant alarm for the Guardians of Our Harmony) but for those outside that scope, how would it be handled? There are two scenario’s where I can see it happening, someone with an extreme submissive personality like Token(credit to the Eclipse Phase yearblog Farcast), or someone who sells their own person in exchange for a benefit to another (which is altruism and I know the Eldrae frown upon altruism but unless I’m mistaken isn’t enough to invalidate a contract on the basis on mental incompetence and insanity).

Both absurd, highly unlikely legal scenarios, but interesting ones and as such ones I want to inquire about. If it helps I suppose you could imagine a curious Imperial citizen inquiring the Curia of how such a situation would be handled in the form of an advisory opinion as they are entitled to under Article II of Section VI of the Imperial Charter, specifically “Advisory opinions on any issue within its jurisdictions may be requested by the Imperial Couple, the Senate, or any interested party.”. At least I think it should qualify. I’m unsure if “interested” means the colloquial sense of interest or interest in the sense of having a meaningful stake regarding the answer. Probably clearer in the original Eldraic but we only have the english version.

Okay, unplanned third question posed to the Curia, does the word “interested” in the phrase “any interested party” include idle interest in the sense of curiosity or only interest in the sense of having a stake in the answer? If yes, well any degree of answer of elaboration would suffice, if no, the absence of an answer would itself be an answer paradoxically enough.

A thing I should make clear. The Fundamental Contract is old. The formalized version it’s usually presented in dates back to the Great Convention of 502-526, and it was commonplace enough to form the basis of Union law back when the Union of Empires was founded, but earlier versions have been found dating back a couple of thousand years pre-Imperial.

None of it is wrong. It hasn’t been overwritten or shrunk in scope since, but in various areas it has been expanded[1]. This is something that affects modern interpretation in ways that may not be initially obvious.

This being said, on the former, there are two obvious legal arguments to make:


The first:

Please provide detailed documentation that every sophont, prosophont, and other legal person-equivalent being within the affected volumes has provided full notarized legal consent to engage in your mutual obliteration pact.

Oh, prosophont beings are definitionally not competent to provide such consent?

Sucks to be you. We require it anyway because prosophont beings, too, are entitled to their measure of life, liberty, and property[2], by virtue of being partially sophont[3]. Bite us.


Two:

This compact is obviously void on the ground that both parties are incompetent to contract by virtue of pernicious irrationality, trivially demonstrated by the desire to fight Ragnarok and take everything else in their portion of the galaxy with them.

The Presiding Minister moves that they have their toys taken away and they be locked in a nice rubber room for the indefinite future. Seconds?


And, on a note somewhat bloodier than legalistic, but one that would probably have cropped up before things got to this point:

Outwith legal matters, the desire to engage in Ragnarok clearly demonstrates that both parties to this pact constitute jointly and severally an existential threat to galactic civilization in general.

The Presiding Minister moves that, in the interest of the common defense of galactic civilization, both parties be subject to the most severe censure. To wit, extermination.

Seconds?


On the second question:

By any reasonable definition, contracting away the entirety of your volition, especially for an indefinite term, is unsane.

(See also the Nonjustifiability of Hells argument, rephrased in the terms of paying an infinite price for a finite value.

Also, if you phrased this in chattel terms, it would have been thrown out of lower courts immediately on the grounds that a first derivative of the Contract is that volitional beings are subjects, not objects, and as such cannot be property[4] period.)

It also probably violates the local equivalent of the rule against perpetuities.


On the third, while not requiring so direct an interest as Earth courts do when they require a stake in the outcome - they are willing to listen to serious claims of second-, third-, and enth-order effects - it isn’t an invitation for everyone to kibitz. That’s how you end up with a million amicus briefs for every vaguely interesting case.


  1. Specifically in ways that expanded the collection of objects of ethical concern. ↩︎

  2. And if you go sufficiently far down through the most expansive philosophical views in the Imperial philosophical continuum, so do the merely sapient, sentient, and quite possibly the completely inanimate. ↩︎

  3. Cognition is fractalline. Bright lines are fuzzy. Be nice to your LLMs. ↩︎

  4. You may recall earlier discussions making the point that, for example, under the Imperial legal regime, dogs cannot be property. ↩︎