I'll take first bite. Separation of Church and state - once we remove the religion factor, all peoples converge on the same set of laws/legal principles.

:up:

I wish to ask why a state cannot operate two sets of laws in order to cater for significant minorities eg India has a Muslim minority of around 14% (it is the largest group of Muslims found within the boundaries of a nation state where Muslims are not a majority). Why could India not run two legal codes, Hindu/Secular and Shariah, with individuals being registered at birth for one or the other based on parental affiliation. — usefulidiot

I have heard of programs run by mosques in the US where civil disputes can be addressed following Muslim religious law. Both sides have to agree to handle things that way, just like they would with any other arbitrator.

Yes, I know that's not exactly what you are talking about, but I thought you might be interested.

There is no reason they cannot do so. It happens and is known as legal pluralism. It can be found in some countries, countries for instance running a centralized legal system but also accepting the verdicts under customary law of some indigenous communities. I believe the UK ran an experiment with shari'a courts. There is no reason in principle, but for the state wanting to determine the content of the law and extending its centralizing and unificatory force. The fear may be that that communities will start to live separate lives not feeling themselves part of the same nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_pluralism

I wish to ask why a state cannot operate two sets of laws in order to cater for significant minorities — usefulidiot

Here are a few reasons:

No appeal to highest authority. Legal disputes can be taken to higher courts. In the case of dual systems, there would be two authorities. each the highest court in its own system. There would be no way of settling disputes between these two authories - unless there is some authority higher than both. Which then re-creates a single system.

There are multiple (non-state) codes already. People can agree any way they like of settling disputes. They can call them 'laws' if they like, e.g. the laws of cricket. If they don't agree with the process or the results, then they can opt out of the so-called laws and appeal to the law of the land, that is, of the State.

.....after reaching the age of majority to prevent individuals from switching codes for personal benefit or just to game the system there could be a two or three year delay from application to registration. — usefulidiot

OK, that sounds sensible on the face of it - and that would be the law, right? But suppose one of the systems changes that law and the other disagrees with the change. Who will settle that dispute?

Natural justice. Suppose 'personal benefit' includes getting justice, for example, a woman being able to escape a violent marriage through divorce. Now she submits to daily beatings because she should not be a selfish person only thinking of her personal benefit and gaming the system.

No appeal to highest authority. Legal disputes can be taken to higher courts. In the case of dual systems, there would be two authorities. each the highest court in its own system. There would be no way of settling disputes between these two authories - unless there is some authority higher than both. Which then re-creates a single system. — Cuthbert

Not necessarily. In the Netherlands there are two different distinct highest courts and there have been different rulings on the same substantive subject though rarely. One just needs to delineate competencies very carefully or allow a choice of legal system upfront, but prohibit 'forum shopping'. It happens in the world of international business quite often that they choose a certain jurisdiction. There is no reason that should not be possible inside country.

It is not all that difficult. I have been married under Turkish law. When we moved to the Netherlands, it remained a marriage according to Turkish private law. If we would have been divorced in the Netherlands it might well be that the Dutch court would need to settle the matter by Turkish private law. That could have well have been important for the division of assets and so on. It was not an issue, but could have been. Actually there is a whole area of law called private international law that regulates such matter. Still, we might end up demanding national courts to practice the laws of another nation. I would find that a lot more complicated than allowing for a different code of laws in another area of the country or for a certain ethnic group. The hang up over this is actually quite recent. In Europe's past they allowed all inds of different sources of law, local custom, clerical (canonic) law, Roman law etc.

That's very interesting and I did not know. But in the Netherlands isn't the country's Parliament sovereign? I mean, the law-makers can decide that it's legal in Netherlands to apply e.g. Turkish civil law in those circumstances. Turkey cannot make that decision for the Netherlands. But if the two jurisdictions were operating in the same State, I don't understand where sovereignty would lie. Perhaps that's why it's a modern problem and a democratic problem. If a monarch can say 'OK, Church, you can do whatever you want in these aspects of law', then so be it. But where law-makers are democratically accountable then it looks more complicated.

It must be that one set of laws is superior, or I must spit on the sidewalk and you mustn't? That would make the inferior laws really a set of exceptions. And most societies have their own problems with just one reasonably clear set of laws - who is going to enforce a dual set, and how?

Or perhaps the exception be limited to civil law, people suing each other. But then in suits that cross the laws, whose prevails?

Just for example, I don't see Muslims doing well in a society that embraces free speech, for the simple reason that recent history shows that at least some Muslims even think they have a duty to abuse and kill anyone espousing ideas they don't like.

In principle, sure, why not. But it won't work in practice.

Just for example, I don't see Muslims doing well in a society that embraces free speech, for the simple reason that recent history shows that at least some Muslims even think they have a duty to abuse and kill anyone espousing ideas they don't like. — tim wood

Because like, sure, all Muslims are the same you know and there are no countries with a predominantly muslim population but also a secular legal systems and like the muslims that live in Western countries all secretly want to abolish free speech, yeah man, haven't you seen it on Fox new?

Let me write it down in two line so even the less than useful idiots on this forum can gain an modicum of comprehension:

A: no, not every secular society agrees on the same legal principles. Contentious issues like the death penalty and 'good Samaritan' laws attest to that.
B: There are indeed countries that offer distinct legal systems to different segments of the population, it is called legal pluralism.

A: no, not every secular society agrees on the same legal principles. Contentious issues like the death penalty and 'good Samaritan' laws attest to that. — Tobias

Agreed, no question.

B: There are indeed countries that offer distinct legal systems to different segments of the population, it is called legal pluralism. — Tobias

Are you quite sure they're distinct? Are they civil, criminal, both? I have a tough time believing that while I cannot do something to you because it would be a crime for me to do it, that I can summon my bro.-in-law to do it because it is not a crime for him to do it.

Because like, sure, all Muslims are the same you know — Tobias

And this snark simply won't do as being hopelessly ignorant of and inadequate for whatever it is you have in mind. E.g., is Salman Rushdie still in hiding? (Ans., I find this online dated 2020: "Rushdie was given police protection, adopted an alias and went into hiding, on and off, for a decade. He still lives with the fatwa, which has never been revoked, but now he lives more openly. He has said this is due to a conscious decision on his part, not because he believes the threat is gone.")

Are you quite sure they're distinct? Are they civil, criminal, both? I have a tough time believing that while I cannot do something to you because it would be a crime for me to do it, that I can summon my bro.-in-law to do it because it is not a crime for him to do it. — tim wood

Usually civil law arrangements. On criminal law I have less knowledge, because as a branch of public law it is much closer tied to the state. Differences are thinkable though, though probably not on violent crime, also because there is not much controversy about violence being prosecuted. However, some laws concerning blasphemy or libel, insult, for instance may be treated differently, though I do not know myself of any country that does so.
However, criminal law is in comparison to civil law a small branch of law. Most law you are dealing with every day is contracts, tort, family law, tax law etc.

Edit: in criminal law for instance I could see for instance laws against male circumcision being applied differently because of religious grounds. Usually, in a rather unitary country, some exception will be taken up in the article that prohibits assault, but it is in principle thinkable that there are different criminal codes. States will be reluctant to have it, because criminal law is seen as a competence of the state par excellence, but it is by no means unthinkable.

And this snark simply won't do as being hopelessly ignorant of and inadequate for whatever it is you have in mind. E.g., is Salman Rushdie still in hiding? (Ans., I find this online dated 2020: "Rushdie was given police protection, adopted an alias and went into hiding, on and off, for a decade. He still lives with the fatwa, which has never been revoked, but now he lives more openly. He has said this is due to a conscious decision on his part, not because he believes the threat is gone.") — tim wood

Sure, but the fact that some muslims want Salman Rushdie dead is for you an indication that muslims will not do well in a country that has freedom of speech. That is just a silly generalization. There are people who want Pelosi dead because of her ideas, unfortunately. Do you conclude that Republicans will not do well in a country with freedom of speech? Of course not. Many people unfortunately face death threats because of their ideas, from a lot of different corners, far left, Islamic radicalism, extreme right. If we start equating everyone on the left with far left and everyone on the right with far right, than, by your logic we will soon run out of people for whom freedom of speech is acceptable. Protestants are generally against gay marriage, do you think they will not do well in the Netherlands, a country where gay people may officially marry? The snark is unfortunate, but deserved, because you simply made a rather ignorant and offensive remark. Your last post was not and so I will not give a snarky reply, but, I hope, a reasonable one.

By the way many muslim countries actually prohibit membership of extremist religious groups under anti-terrorism laws, because they might well be perceived threats to the order of the state.

I will grant that de facto legal pluralism exists likely on every street-corner. In the US local v. state v. federal laws, not to mention Native American Indian reservations. But in almost every case, one set trumps another, and one the rest.

As to civil - as to any law - the underlying issue is what I can force you to do, whether to pay a fine or a judgment, perform or not perform an action, or send you to jail. And, subject to correction, I cannot see a how a society works if it supports contradictory legal systems. The US an example: where laws contradict, society doesn't work, and remains broken until the issues of law are fixed, requiring legislation, the US Army in a high school, or even a civil war.

And, it is not accurate to say that some Muslims want someone dead. It's called a fatwah, and that's not some Muslims. it is Islam itself. So it is not a hopelessly silly generalization, it is a fact, and one representative of Muslim practices in places around the world that are simply by most modern standards awful. To be sure, nearly as I can tell, Islam itself is evolving, and many evolved, but not so much in many places, or within many authorities. Reducing this to the behaviors of a few, "some," wackos speaks ill of your cognitive abilities. (If you want to take just this on, I prefer PM; because it's an ugly topic all the way 'round.)

As to civil - as to any law - the underlying issue is what I can force you to do, whether to pay a fine or a judgment, perform or not perform an action, or send you to jail. And, subject to correction, I cannot see a how a society works if it supports contradictory legal systems. The US an example: where laws contradict, society doesn't work, and remains broken until the issues of law are fixed, requiring legislation, the US Army in a high school, or even a civil war. — tim wood

Well, in the Ottoman Empire different courts existed from different societal denominations. There can be different codes of inheritance law for instance for different ethnic groups. As long as the state guarantees both and there are good rules in case of conflict between choices of jurisdiction there is no problem, as long as it is clear which jurisdictions are chosen. Like I mentioned above, the Netherlands has two different highest courts of law. It works because of the 'una via' principle. When you bring your case through the administrative law courts, you cannot submit it again under civil law. There have been contrary decisions on a similar case now and then, that is interesting, but also that can be dealt by, for instance via the 'lex posterior' rule, a later verdict supercedes and earlier one. I do not know if that is what you mean, but there might be different codes of law for different people, even if there is one supreme court. That court must then be versed in the law of denomination A and denomination B.

And, it is not accurate to say that some Muslims want someone dead. It's called a fatwah, and that's not some Muslims. it is Islam itself. — tim wood

Huh? Last time I checked islam itself had no voice. A Fatwah is a religious verdict. In Turkish society and under Turkish law for instance such verdicts are not recognized. The official stance of the papacy is against anti conception, so do all Catholics have sex without a condom? Moreover there are different branches of Islam. So 'Islam itself' is another silly generalization.

To be sure, nearly as I can tell, Islam itself is evolving, and many evolved, but not so much in many places, or within many authorities — tim wood

I do not even understand what you mean. What do you mean with 'many authorities'? There is no Islam itself just like there is no Catholicism itself or Protestantism itself, let alone 'Christianity itself'.

Reducing this to the behaviors of a few, "some," wackos speaks ill of your cognitive abilities. (If you want to take just this on, I prefer PM; because it's an ugly topic all the way 'round.) — tim wood

Ohh no need for a PM, but rest assured my cognitive abilities are perfectly in order. Indeed this discussion detracts from the topic at hand, but hey, I did not start making ill informed generalizations about swathes of people having little in common but a religious belief.

As long as the state guarantees both and there are good rules in case of conflict between choices of jurisdiction there is no problem, as long as it is clear which jurisdictions are chosen. Like I mentioned above, the Netherlands has two different highest courts of law. It works because of the 'una via' principle. When you bring your case through the administrative law courts, you cannot submit it again under civil law. — Tobias

What might a good rule be in case of disagreement on jurisdiction? This would seem to matter. It goes to the question of the OP. Which imo is answered by observing that there cannot be two separate systems, but that one yield to the other, or both to a third.

What might a good rule be in case of disagreement on jurisdiction? This would seem to matter. It goes to the question of the OP. Which imo is answered by observing that there cannot be two separate systems, but that one yield to the other, or both to a third. — tim wood

It is a good question. Well consider this: There is a Country A. In country A two ethnic groups live, Group B and group C. Group's B and group C. have a different system of inheritance law. For instance: In group B children may be completely disowned. In group C. the children are protected and cannot be disowned from at least a portion of their inheritance. This is only a simplified example, maybe there are many different regulations in their inheritance law, maybe in their family law at large, and perhaps also in other areas of law, but let's keep it to inheritance. Now, we have two different legal systems. What do we we need to have to make this system coexist? In any case we need rules about who belongs to group B or group C, because that determines the regime of inheritance law. Moreover, we need a court that decides on conflicts arising about the law of being part of group B and C. But for every conflict internal to group B and group C, different courts may be established. Let's call this court that determines whether one belongs to C or to D, court E. Now is that court E more powerful? Not really, it does not deal with matters relating to inheritance law of C or D. It only has competence over determining whether one belongs to group C or D. These courts may be comprised of judges of both group C and D for instance.

You might say, well that is still one legal system because both have to submit to court E. However, notice how court E does not deal with anything substantive. It just decides on procedure. What I do grant you is that both C and D have to agree to settle their disputes over jurisdiction to court E. That is where they are connected. Nonetheless, people in the same state are subjected to different inheritance laws, maybe different family law, property law and what not. We have two different systems of law, not totally unconnected. I am thinking about what it would look like if they would be totally unconnected. That might be possible, but than the state has to devolve de facto law making to these different groups C and D. It is well thinkable still. Then the two systems will have to establish their own rules for what people they have competency. It might well be less stable than the previous system discussed above, but I see no objection in theory.

In any case, also in the system discussed above, we have two different legal systems, coexisting in the same territory. Sure some arrangements need to be made. It does not necessarily lead to civil war, if both agree on the rules of procedure to determine the jurisdiction of the different legal systems.

if both agree on the rules of procedure to determine the jurisdiction of the different legal systems. — Tobias

A pretty big if. I'll opine that the question of principle and practice yields to the question of how much torque the agreement can stand. And whether in principle or practice, I think not a lot. A consideration that comes to mind is the greater interest of the community. If either of B's or C's differing practices harm the community, the community may move to end or modify the practice in question.

Support of children an apt example. I think most favor taxes to support children, to the alternative of their running wild or dying in the streets. But not if those who should be supporting them are evading that responsibility.

Anyway, I think you've made your case. I merely suppose that at the extremes of stress and tension, cooperation breaks down.

The actual answer to this question is that people cannot be trusted with power. People even more cannot be trusted with power that is distinguished by discriminatory administration. People desire such power above all other desires. Power hungry people will invade the power hierarchy and manipulate the laws to displace targeted demographics to be indefinately displaced and fed upon and everything would be a catastrophe, just like every society that has experimented with such practices have, such as Athens, Rome, Ottoman, Britain, Germany, Italy, Russia, and so. The only workable system is one that recognizes no differences between people predicated upon immutable characteristics. And even that is barely workable. Political power is the bane of humanity.

That's very interesting and I did not know. But in the Netherlands isn't the country's Parliament sovereign? I mean, the law-makers can decide that it's legal in Netherlands to apply e.g. Turkish civil law in those circumstances. Turkey cannot make that decision for the Netherlands. But if the two jurisdictions were operating in the same State, I don't understand where sovereignty would lie. Perhaps that's why it's a modern problem and a democratic problem. If a monarch can say 'OK, Church, you can do whatever you want in these aspects of law', then so be it. But where law-makers are democratically accountable then it looks more complicated. — Cuthbert

Well in our current system the state, whether democratic or otherwise, is considered sovereign in the area of international law. The rules of Private International Law are usually laid down in treaties. Turkey cannot decide it for the Netherlands but Turkey and the Netherlands can engage in a treaty on the matter.

It might be more complicated in a democracy... but I do not see any principle dificulties. There are many different inds of states, some more unitary some very decentralized. If everybody (or a majority)thinks it is a good idea that law making is devolved to lower administrative bodies, also under parliamentary sovereignty they can engage in this form of self restriction.

A pretty big if. I'll opine that the question of principle and practice yields to the question of how much torque the agreement can stand. And whether in principle or practice, I think not a lot. A consideration that comes to mind is the greater interest of the community. If either of B's or C's differing practices harm the community, the community may move to end or modify the practice in question.

Anyway, I think you've made your case. I merely suppose that at the extremes of stress and tension, cooperation breaks down. — tim wood

Sure, that needs empirical work to find out. There is empirical work done in this field by legal anthropologist and legal sociologists. They study such systems and its difficulties and interrelationships. Sometimes actually it may also build trust between communities that have been in conflict. Establishing one legal order may then prove to be very difficult as it may be seen as colonizing or oppressive. So for the time being the communities in conflict might settle their differences by allowing forms of legal pluralism, in order for each community to keep its own identity.

I am sure having citizens living under two separate codes would present difficulties but is there any reason in principle why it is wrong for there to be two (or more) legal codes in effect in one nation state. — usefulidiot

In short my answer to the question would be no, there is no reason in principle why it is wrong for there to be more then one legal code, unless you hold on to the notion of law as the command of some leviathan like sovereign who cannot be limited. A bit of a Hobbesian view. That view is rarely held though nowadays, at least not among sociologist of law. There is though an ongoing debate as to how much law needs to be tied to state institutions in order to be called law. The two separately existing legal orders would both be bound to the state though so that problem is not in view here.

Ultimately, the law has to be perceived as being objectively fair. If there is more than one law restraining or addressing a subject of action, one of them must be objectively wrong if there is an objective standard. However, some cultures have successfully implemented dual codes. For example, here in the US, there are separate laws that effect members of native American tribes. If a defendant is a member of a native American tribe he has the option of being tried under US law or his native American tribal law which may be governed by a separate tribal council.

Please allow me to thank all of you who posted.

Originally, no one responded and I had to bump this thread. Indeed, I had forgotten that I had posted. I only discovered that it had generated replies by chance. It is now 5 am and I cannot give a coherent reply to anyone but again: thank you for responding.