# Corporate Law: How GLMZ Governs Itself

## Overview

GLMZ is not governed by a government. It is governed by a governance consortium — a committee composed of representatives from the six corponations (Axiom, Tessera, Sterling-Nakamura, Zheng-Dao, Arcturus, and Ringo) that collectively manage the city under the terms of the Meridian Charter, the founding document that established the city in the 2080s and defined the legal framework that replaces traditional governance.

## The Meridian Charter

The Charter is a contract — not a constitution, not a set of laws, but a commercial agreement between six corporate entities that defines their respective rights, obligations, and the rules governing their coexistence in shared urban space. The Charter establishes:

- **Territorial rights**: Each corponation controls specific infrastructure, facilities, and zones within the city
- **Shared obligations**: Contributions to common infrastructure (atmospheric processing, water treatment, transit, UBC)
- **Dispute resolution**: A binding arbitration system for inter-corporate conflicts
- **Security framework**: Rules governing the use of force within and between corporate territories
- **Resident rights**: A minimal set of protections for the city's population (UBC, emergency medical care, freedom of movement between corporate zones)

The Charter does not establish democratic governance. Residents have no vote, no representation, and no formal mechanism for influencing Charter policy. The corponations that signed the Charter consider this a feature: democracy is slow, inefficient, and vulnerable to populist manipulation. Corporate governance is fast, efficient, and vulnerable to exactly the kind of concentrated-power corruption that democratic systems were designed to prevent. The trade-off defines GLMZ's political character.

## The Legal System

### Civil Law
Contract disputes, property rights, and commercial litigation are handled by the Consortium Arbitration Service — a panel of corporate-appointed arbitrators who apply Charter law to disputes between entities. Individuals can bring civil claims, but the system is designed for corporate litigation and handles individual cases as an afterthought. Legal representation is available through corporate legal plans (for employees) and pro bono services (for everyone else — Nia Okafor-Bright's practice handles a significant caseload).

### Criminal Law
Criminal law in GLMZ is defined by the Consortium Security Code — a set of prohibited behaviors and prescribed penalties that apply uniformly across all corporate zones. The Code criminalizes: violence against persons, theft, fraud, infrastructure damage, unauthorized weapons possession, and a long list of offenses against corporate interests (espionage, intellectual property theft, unauthorized access to restricted systems). Enforcement is handled by whichever corporate security force has jurisdiction over the location of the offense.

### The AI Judge
For offenses below Tier 3 severity, sentencing is recommended by The Scale — the AI sentencing advisory system. The Scale analyzes case data, applies sentencing guidelines, and produces a recommended sentence that human judges review and (92% of the time) approve. The system is efficient, consistent, and blind to the individual circumstances that human judges sometimes consider: a first offense by a desperate parent steals food and The Scale recommends the same sentence as a repeat offense by a professional thief. Consistency is not the same as justice. The distinction is the subject of ongoing legal challenge.

### Corporate Detention
The most controversial element of GLMZ's legal system is corporate detention — the authority of corponations to detain individuals under corporate security law without public trial, public charges, or defined sentence length. Corporate detention is authorized by the Charter for offenses against corporate security (espionage, sabotage, unauthorized access to classified systems) and is subject to no external oversight. Nia Okafor-Bright has challenged corporate detention seventeen times. Three challenges have succeeded. The authority remains.