An Anarchistic Oasis In The Middle Of The Desert
British law is oasis of reassurance in Dubai:
Look down from the 50th floor of your hotel in the Gulf port of Dubai and you can see 110 acres of desert that will be forever England.Could it be that the same peoples that gave us the modern numbering system (including 0) are doing the almost unthinkable once more? Who is backwards again?Below you is a free trade area, an enclave with no taxes or customs duties and no restrictions on foreign ownership. That, in itself, is nothing special: Dubai has nearly a dozen already. But what's unique about the Dubai International Financial Centre, DIFC, is that Dubai's normal civil and commercial laws do not apply within.
Under a formal decree of the United Arab Emirates, and local laws signed by the late Ruler of Dubai, the two authorities that hold absolute power carved out an area from which they withdrew their own system of laws. The concept is breathtaking: here in DIFC, English common law reigns supreme - and under a British chief justice. Although there are some similarities to the Vatican, Hong Kong and even Gaza, it is thought to be the first time that any state has done this.
Comments (25)
A.B. Dada
If only I could move there. My February travels are taking me to London, Warsaw and Zurich followed by Mumbai, Goa and Madras. If time allows, I will swing through Dubai, but the airfare and hotel fees are pretty pricey.
I'd love to talk to ex-patriates living in the market region, I've heard that the potential for income for us yanks is fairly high.
Published: February 1, 2006 8:27 PM
GMB
Isn't that just terrific. And especially when you consider the cesspool of nastines in the surrounding areas. Surely this is evidence that this multiple autonomous areas idea of Hoppe is the way to tame our violent species.
Published: February 1, 2006 9:24 PM
Jeremy Andrews
Once again it can be said that the Sun never sets on the British Empire.
Published: February 1, 2006 10:05 PM
Sudha Shenoy
Be careful: 'The sun never sets on the British Empire -- because God doesn't trust the British..' -- But more seriously: the DCs are those with _grown_ systems of case-law, based on the individual qua individual: English common law, Roman law (yes), & "merchants' law" in the case of Japan. The more developed areas of the LDCs are the same. Economic activity _&_ law ignore political boundaries.
Published: February 1, 2006 10:25 PM
Pussy Queen
You need to brush up your history. The numerical system you use is Indian. The Arabs just delivered it to you.
Published: February 1, 2006 11:13 PM
Tim Swanson
Eh, I didn't say they actually invented it -- the Wiki link suggests the history you mentioned as well . At any rate, beats using bulky roman numerals...
Published: February 1, 2006 11:59 PM
iceberg
Why is it considered anarchy if one authority withdrew to allow a different one to rule?
Published: February 2, 2006 7:49 AM
Peter
What "rule"? The article says "Unless the parties to a transaction have chosen a different legal system ...", which implies that they can choose a different legal system, at least in part (Dubai criminal law still applies, at least). Granted, it's probably (undoubtedly) still far from what libertarians would like, but it sounds like a good start.
Published: February 2, 2006 7:58 AM
iceberg
Peter,
So it's anarchic in the sense that it has polycentric legal systems?
Published: February 2, 2006 9:16 AM
Vince Daliessio
it is anarchic in relative terms, true. But at least it's an effort to remove some of the usual legal encrustation in the hope that maybe there will be beneficial effects - I think that the demonstration value alone might make it worth accepting a less than totally anarchic system there.
Published: February 2, 2006 9:22 AM
homeimprovementninja
I think this is a great experiment (although the fact that it comes from a monarchy in an area that has suffered from thousands of years of tribal fighting doesn't bode well).
Rothbard (in for a new liberty) suggested the possibility of competing legal systems and people being able to choose the laws/arbiters that they desire. I think the arbitration system in the US is evidence of the workability of that proposition.
Published: February 2, 2006 9:25 AM
SteamshipTime
I think this reflects a much more Hoppean vision of a wealthy and far-sighted elite maintaining a libertarian order.
Hence, the unique legal structure bestowed on the DIFC. Unless the parties to a transaction have chosen a different legal system, any disputes arising from transactions carried out in the centre and any incidents occurring within its boundaries are governed by DIFC law.
Local criminal laws still apply, which means that someone might still face prosecution in the Dubai courts for fraud; the DIFC and the Dubai authorities share a common interest in tackling fraud and money-laundering.
This is actually not so revolutionary. Choice of law and arbitration clauses are rather common. And the developers of this project wisely opted for the unilateral imposition of a uniform criminal code.
Published: February 2, 2006 10:00 AM
SteamshipTime
The middle two paragraphs above need to be in quotes, excerpted from the Telegraph article.
Published: February 2, 2006 10:03 AM
tz
Is it Anarchy (or AnarchoCapitalism) or Minarchy?
There is too much semantic confusion already, and I wouldn't describe whatever this system is as "anarchy". It isn't an example of no law or no rules.
Published: February 2, 2006 11:51 AM
Manuel Lora
Anarchy is simply no state. There can be law and rules without a state.
Published: February 2, 2006 12:14 PM
Vince Daliessio
Exactly. The rules in anarchy are purely contractual and voluntary. State rules are purely coercive.
Published: February 2, 2006 12:25 PM
Wild Pegasus
The rules in anarchy are purely contractual and voluntary.
Nonsense. Rules against murder require no contract and are not voluntary.
- Josh
Published: February 2, 2006 4:52 PM
averros
The rules in anarchy are purely contractual and voluntary.
The choice of law provider is contractual and voluntary, but not all rules are contractual - a workable anarchy requires widespread acceptance of validity of the natural law.
Murder is allowed under the natural law only in self-defense.
Published: February 2, 2006 10:17 PM
Peter
If it's self-defense, it isn't murder. Murder (e.g., killing an uninvolved innocent party) is not allowed in self-defense :)
Published: February 3, 2006 12:43 AM
Vince Daliessio
To clarify, I was speaking of CIVIL rules being contractual under anarchy. Specifically in the case of Dubai, state criminal courts still prevail. The case can be made, however, that murder is a kind of breach of contract, the agreement being that one will be free to be left alone as long as one does not commit an act of force or fraud. Murder is a positive act of force and thus negates the natural order.
Published: February 3, 2006 8:42 AM
Paul Dunlap
In my opinion, anarchy exists when...
1) There is no institution that claims the right to appropriate the property of others (ie tax).
2) There is no institution that claims a monopoly on the judicial functions and law enforcement. This means that there may exist multiple organizations that enforce and write law. It does not mean that laws must be agreed upon.
As the article says, "British common law reigns supreme, under a British chief justice." As Vince says, this precludes victims from prosecuting in courts of their choice. As such, I wouldn't consider it anarchy.
I wouldn't consider murder a breech of contract. A contract is a set of terms one is bound to by their own agreement. A person does not have to agree to the prohibitions on murder and other violations of rights in order to be bound by them. I guess it's semantic though.
Published: February 3, 2006 10:17 PM
Paul Dunlap
In my opinion, anarchy exists when...
1) There is no institution that claims the right to appropriate the property of others (ie tax).
2) There is no institution that claims a monopoly on the judicial functions and law enforcement. This means that there may exist multiple organizations that enforce and write law. It does not mean that laws must be agreed upon.
As the article says, "British common law reigns supreme, under a British chief justice." As Vince says, this precludes victims from prosecuting in courts of their choice. As such, I wouldn't consider it anarchy.
I wouldn't consider murder a breech of contract. A contract is a set of terms one is bound to by their own agreement. A person does not have to agree to the prohibitions on murder and other violations of rights in order to be bound by them. I guess it's semantic though.
Published: February 3, 2006 10:18 PM
Tanstaafl
Check out Neal Stephenson's book Cryptonomicon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptonomicon) in which a Muslim sultan uses the sovereignty of his island to set up a data crypt where anyone can store their data free from the eyes of prying governments. Guess who doesn't like the idea.
Published: February 3, 2006 10:54 PM
Peter
Paul: the article says "unless the parties to a transaction have chosen a different legal system", implying that nobody claims a monopoly on judicial functions (or, presumably, enforcement).
Published: February 3, 2006 11:46 PM
Laura O Craig
U all chat Poo!! and non of tis make sence someone say in english pleae or slang or whatever
Published: March 5, 2007 5:58 AM