On Edicts and Decrees

[garentoft 9265]

 

 

 

Issued by the

LORD PALATINE OF HANSETI-RUSKA

c. 9th OF VZMEY AND HYFF, 573 E.S.

 

A MISSIVE FROM THE LORD PALATINE ON PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNANCE

 

 

VE ASSERAN UZMAE NOVD,

Three years ago, when I served as Lord Regent of this Kingdom, I released to the public three documents. The Edict of Obergrad, the Royal Decree on Fair Trials, and the Royal Decree on Appropriate Criminal Punishment me. In doing so, I intentionally made the distinction between what I considered to be Edict, and that which I considered to be Decree. 

 

These words have often been used interchangeably in the long history of our Kingdom. However, it is my intention to create a distinction between these, both in an effort to make it clearer what these entail, and also in the hopes that this distinction may allow the various Offices and Institutions a greater freedom in governing themselves.

 

 

Edicts are the simpler of the two subjects to be touched upon, for the concept of the Edict is, in truth, rather unproblematic. Edicts have, since the time of the first Haurul Caezk in 340 E.S., been the method by which the Crown (or in some cases, an Aulic Councillor with the express consent of the Crown) to amend the Haurul Caezk. I do reaffirm this historical stance on the nature of Edicts.

 

The Haurul Caezk is the all-encompassing law code of the Kingdom, because of this, it becomes increasingly prudent that there are options when it comes to rewriting and adapting the law, as otherwise we would be left with an ancient law code, hardly fit for the society we have today. Therefore, we have two ways to amend the Haurul Caezk: firstly, through the aforementioned Edicts; secondly, through legislation passed in the Royal Duma.

 

It is clear that by their nature of being one of two ways to amend the Haurul Caezk, that an Edict should only come directly from the Crown itself, or, as has been done often in practice, with the clear consent and approval of the Crown. The integrity of the clear consent and approval of the Crown should be stressed, as otherwise it may cast the legality of the Edict into question. This practice has allowed the Aulic Councillors to make changes to the Haurul Caezk when necessary for them in their reforms, as otherwise they would have had to petition the Royal Duma to pass bills pertaining to these reforms.

 

 

Decrees are where the matter becomes more complicated, especially owing to the historical tendency for all documents issued by the Crown, a member of the Aulic Council, or an institution, to use the terminology of Edict. A tendency that we do not fault them for, for the matter is complex, and there has not prior been made an attempt to distinguish Edicts and Decrees from one another.

 

A Decree is a binding document issued by the relevant head of an institution. Institutions must in this case be considered broadly, as to understand that this could range from the Crown itself to the Hospital of St. Amyas, meaning there is a broad selection of people who possess the privilege to issue Decrees.

 

It must furthermore be stressed that a Decree shall remain within the subject matter of the institution, though it is possible that institutions can make joint decrees. For example, the Surgeon-General cannot singlehandedly issue a Decree that the Treasury shall provide funding for replacement limbs to soldiers of the Brotherhood of St. Karl. However, the Surgeon-General, the Lord Treasurer, and the Lord Marshal may jointly issue such a Decree. Only the Crown may issue Royal Decrees that pertain to the subject matter of any institution.

 

A Decree is written with the intent of clarifying or establishing a practice of the relevant institution, in such a way where it either builds upon the words of the Haurul Caezk (for such are often vague) or fills in any gaps that may have been left in it. A Decree can therefore not amend the Haurul Caezk, for that is what Edicts are. As such, they may not contradict the Haurul Caezk.

 

While principally, a Decree is in effect until stated otherwise, or until conditions written into the Decree are met, they are easily rescinded as they are written. The head of the institution that issued the Decree may, if they see it fit, rescind it with immediate effect. For joint Decrees, it is enough for the head of one of the institutions for it to be considered rescinded wholly. The Crown, furthermore, may rescind any Decree, if it finds it to be against the values by which it wishes to govern.

 

For examples of recent Decrees, you may see the Royal Decree on Fair Trials^[1] and the Royal Decree on Appropriate Criminal Punishment^[2] issued during my time as Lord Regent. Furthermore, you may see Lord Speaker Sigmund Ludovar’s Ludovik Decree^[3], establishing policies regarding how His Excellency wishes to conduct sessions of the Royal Duma. 

 

This, however, may give the impression that only things titled Decree are Decrees, but by definition, a lot of other publications by heads of institutions are, by their nature, Decrees. My publication on the reorganisation of the Office of the Lord Palatine into the Secretariat of the Lord Palatine^[4] is, in accordance with the principles outlined above, a Decree; a Decree that establishes practices on the structure of the Palatial Office.

 

Various documents issued through time, titled as Edicts, would also be Decrees rather than Edicts by these principles. As such, there remains some work in combing through the legal history of this Kingdom and determining the legal status of various Decrees written in the past, something that I intend to rely on the Aulic Court for. It is my belief that Decrees, just as the Edicts and the Haurul Caezk, must be subject to intense legal review to ensure the legality of them.

 

[1] THE ROYAL DECREE ON FAIR TRIALS, Tomasz van ve Karoswald, 570 E.S.

[2] THE ROYAL DECREE ON APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT, Tomasz van ve Karoswald, 570 E.S.

[3] THE LUDOVIK DECREE, Sigmund Ludovar, 570 E.S.

[4] SECRETARIAT OF THE LORD PALATINE, Tomasz van ve Karoswald, 571 E.S.

 

 

VE EDLERVIK, MEA LIFST AG MEA ZALIBA OVARE DLUM TEAM,

HIS EXCELLENCY, TOMASZ VAN VE KAROSWALD

LORD PALATINE OF HAENSE, BARON-CONSORT OF KAROSWALD.