Work Text:
The Kingdom of Khura'in as a case study for radical legal reform. Written by Justice, A. and Sahdmadhi, N. American Journal of International Law. Volume 126, Issue 4 (2032): 452-460.
Abstract: this article provides a dissection of a case study four years in the making from the Kingdom of Khura'in as to ways in which court systems can be reformed to radically change the functioning of a country's justice system. It lays out the intellectual heritage of the system under construction in Khura'in and provides anecdotal and statistical evidence surrounding its operation.
Background:
In May 2028, revolution shook Khura'in, in particular its legal system, which had been progressively reformed into an oppressive regime for twenty three years through unlawful methods.[1][2] Due to years of repression, Khura'in was in a unique position at the time in that it had no functioning law offices, and a relatively small prosecutor's office due to low crime rates and the efficiency of the corrupt methods in use.[3][4]
The political and historical repercussions of this have been discussed at length, not least by the burgeoning archival attempts of many of the country's citizens in the wake of such a momentous historical event.[5] What has as of yet gone neglected, however, is a major study of how the country's legal system is being rebuilt out of the ashes that once scattered its earth.
The authors of this article, Justice and Sahdmadhi, formed part of the pioneering effort to reconstruct the legal system.[6] Due to the chronological gap between when the country last had legitimate legal processes and May 2028, the widespread attempts by the previous monarch to suppress any form of advocacy within the Kingdom leading to burnings of law offices and their associated resources, and a general lack of individuals with defence training, those with detailed knowledge of how the legal system used to function were few and far between.
Because of this particular set of circumstances, the Kingdom of Khura'in presented a unique opportunity for those involved in its legal world to rebuild the system in a new image, largely unburdened by many of the precedents that leave legal systems around the globe unpicking decades of practise when attempting to introduce revolutionary reform.[7] It also carried with it a unique set of challenges, both those outlined above and in the practise section of this paper.
It is the aim of this work to indicate the kind of radical futures that are possible—and perhaps desirable—for legal systems across the globe. While neither author claims that the system devised in Khura’in is perfect or entirely applicable to other systems,[8] they hope that their own unique outlook and experiences can at the very least educate on different ways of being in the legal world.
This article is split chiefly into two sections: theory and practice. The first outlines the landmark cases contributing to legislation and the ideological tenets of the new system in Khura’in, while also explaining in a little more detail some of the concepts of Khura’in’s legal system that may be unfamiliar to readers. The second relays how well this theory actually works when it is lived by lawyers in the system.
Theory:
Before outlining the theory of cooperation that sits at the core of the revolutionary nature of Khura’in’s new legal system, it is necessary to introduce the otherwise uninitiated to what makes the specific legal elements in the country in some ways so impossible to replicate. At the heart of this is the murder trial.
In Khura’in, death is not the end.[9] At the standard murder trial, the Royal Priestess shows the prosecution the final moments of the deceased in advance, and her interpretations of the vision form a key part of the prosecution’s argument.[10] In the past, that has been the end of the story; in the new system, the opposite is true.
Under the new system, the Priestess does not put forward any interpretations of the vision she presents. The prosecution and the defence are both able to view the vision ahead of the trial, just as with all other evidence (see below), and argue their points in real time without the intermediary of a figure who holds similar but separate authority within the court. This is designed to prevent a conflict of interest between the judge’s religious convictions and his loyalty to the truth.[11]
The ability to call the deceased to the victim stand is also an aspect almost entirely unique to Khura’in,[12] and has been partially reintroduced to the legal system following a twenty three year absence.[13] While the practise was not previously used widely, some theoretical guidelines are developing with the aim of treating the deceased much like any other witness: to be valued, but also to be acknowledged as an individual with a fallible memory and interests they may wish to defend from beyond the grave.[14]
Like much of Khura’in’s law, it poses many challenges that result in colourful trials, complete with twists and turns to rival the courtrooms of Los Angeles — trials many readers of this journal may be familiar with.[15] Nonetheless, witnesses eventually point towards the truth, and the bizarre does not obscure justice.
Also at the core of the new legal ethos of Khura’in is the end of nearly a quarter century of legal mismanagement at the hands of an illegitimate ruler. Simply reverting to the way the law was before is insufficient, however — it was the same system that allowed for a single individual to wield too much power and cover far too much up in the pursuit of dominance.[16]
Instead, the guiding principle of Khura’in’s new laws is the building of a better, more open future, where the legal system can trust those who operate within it and the people—active participants in the law and the society it aims to protect—can believe in it in the same way. With that aim in mind, cooperation is the byword of the theoretical underpinning of the system.
Cooperation is the most radical aspect of the legal reform that has swept Khura’in. It goes beyond empty words or even practical steps, instead baking the concept into the legal process of the country’s courts.
The theory operates thus: the prosecution and defence are partners in seeking the truth of crimes committed.[17] As such, they work together.
That is not to say that there is constant collaboration between the opposing counsels in any one trial; it would be naive to hope that there would be no collusion, rigged trials, or bribery occurring as a result of that kind of contact.[18] Instead, it is split into two tenets.
The first tenet is that of transparency. The prosecution has access to no more information than the defence, and vice versa, as they both have access to the same evidence, scenes, and witnesses. This access is unrestricted and simultaneous — there is no surprise evidence and no shock witnesses.
The second tenet is partnership. Instead of communicating with the opposing counsel, each prosecutor and defence attorney is paired with someone of the opposite role, who acts in the co-counsel position with an aim to challenging the views of their co-counsel to better prepare them for opposing arguments.[19]
This is the theory; the practice can, on occasion, be a little messier and more fluid. Nonetheless, it is the belief of the authors that the incorporation of such cooperation into the system produces a healthier—and therefore more effective—method of practising law.
Practise:
The theory of cooperation is the chief issue within this section, and shall be addressed below. First, however, a note on the practice of Khura’in-specific methods is in order.
As previously outlined, Khura’in’s murder trials (and/or other trials in which the voices of the dead provide valuable evidence)[20] involve the participation of individuals who can either recreate the final moments of or physically channel those who are deceased. This is not only an indispensable part of the process considering the religious and political resonance of channelling in Khura’in, but also a unique challenge in practise.
Only one individual in the country is currently able to perform the procedure to view the memories of the deceased, and only one more is able to perform full-body channelling.[21] Due to the extensive duties of both these individuals away from the courtroom, it is often impractical to call them for every case in which they would be useful, especially considering the physically and mentally taxing nature of connecting so deeply with one who is deceased.[22]
As such, it is necessary for the legal system to work around that availability. To date, the most effective measure in managing this multitude of priorities is patience; so long as the crime scene is either preserved (a preferred but not always possible option) or documented thoroughly enough, trials need not be rushed.[23] Similarly, while the letter of the law calls for the use of channelling where helpful, in practise all the lawyers operating in Khura’in are aware that reliance on qualities unique to specific individuals does not a stable system make, especially when looking on to the future of the Kingdom.[24]
The main area in which differences are present between the theory and practice of new Khura’in law is the theory of cooperation. This requires immense personal investment from the lawyers in question, and relies inevitably on the human element of the legal system. This is not, in itself, a bad thing, but can lead to difficulties in execution of what would ideally be a seamless system.
The specific example chosen to be presented in this paper functions thus: Justice and Sahdmadhi Law Offices was revived, in the earliest days of the legal revolution, as Justice Law Offices, and only once the backlog of previous cases and retrials was cleared could this new approach be established.[25] The authors of this work form a defence-prosecution pair, with Justice at the defence bench and Sahdmadhi at the other side of the courtroom.
This was initially trialled with the pair collaborating and then completing a case on opposite ends of the courtroom, using the insights they had found within their joint investigations and debates to bring their best arguments to court. In practise, however, this fell short of expectations; with the defence and prosecution already up to speed on where the lines of argument would lead them, the judge and other trial observers struggled to keep up with the case.[26]
Numerous other potential issues were identified: verdicts could become the realm of persuasion from one side to the other before entering the courtroom, hence making the system more vulnerable to bribery, and the people of Khura’in were not inclined to trust their fates to the hands of two simultaneously working together and against each other. As such, the newer system was devised.
The new system works much as outlined in the theory section, with occasional alterations. As trials with significant political sensitivity remain within Khura’in, and the authors are often called upon to form defence and prosecution in these trials, co-counsels are often swapped in and out based on availability.[27] This can lead to occasionally chaotic environments, especially when multiple cases are ongoing with different teams.[28]
There is also the personal element to consider: when assigning teams, it has to be ascertained that those involved get along and work together in a way that is mutually beneficial and not hampered by intimidation or clashes of personality.[29] The legal world of Khura’in is currently (though this will not always be the case, the authors hope) rather small, and conflicts are not common, but they do occur. In the end, it is a matter of complex logistics that are usually—but not always—handled with skill.
Khura'in is also home to a slowly but steadily growing reformation in the practice of forensics. Taking its cues from American forensics scientist Ema Skye,[30] Khura'in is rebuilding the trust in its legal system after decades of citizen abuse within a police state. The country will do so, scientifically.
This practice of reformed law is, as it stands, highly dynamic in nature. It will fluctuate in future based on the outcomes of particularly challenging trials, weaknesses identified by legal professionals and the populace, and both the number of cases brought to court and the lawyers available to take on those cases. By the time this article is published, much may have changed, and more will certainly shift in years to come. For now, however, this is how the system functions, and it is a development all who are involved in it are proud of.
Conclusions:
There are many lessons to be learned from the example of Khura'in. Due to the unique circumstances in which the system was broken and reforged, much of what has become common in Khura'in would not be possible in almost every other legal system around the world. This much is acknowledged by the authors, who for one would not suggest in an English language journal published primarily in the US that revolution should be adopted for the sake of legal reform.[31]
What the authors would emphasise, however, is that the practice of law in Khura'in is led by young minds invested in the future of the country they operate within. The Kingdom of Khura'in suffered almost a generation's break in the operation of its legal system and has had to make up for lost history through innovation. With the building blocks of history to work from, other countries would do well to look to Khura'in's initiative in building a legal system based not only on opposition, but also on cooperation.
While there are challenges that must be overcome on a daily basis, the authors are confident that these reforms have changed the legal system for the better; public trust in the legal system is now higher in Khura’in than in many countries around the world. Past the original retrials of 2028, disputes of convictions are at an all-time low (including with regards to available statistics from before the reign of Ga’ran),[32] public participation in and understanding of the law continues to grow,[33] and recruits to legal courses and apprenticeships are steadily meeting the needs of the country’s future.[34]
The authors would not presume to dictate the future of legal reform in countries other than their own. However, many concrete actions that could be taken without revolution include the widespread abolition of the death penalty, greater cooperation between investigative teams and those working in criminal law, and an open-minded approach to the place of cooperation within the legal sphere.
Law in Khura'in in the modern age is still something in the process of evolution. In years to come, the authors may look back on this work and laugh at their optimism, or chide themselves for not going far enough. Now or in the future, readers may look at what is set out in this article and think it ludicrous, but it is only the beginning of what true justice can look like when you open your mind to new possibilities.
Acknowledgements:
This article is based off a conference paper given jointly by the authors in March 2032 at the annual Los Angeles Law Conference. The authors thank the district's chief prosecutor, Miles Edgeworth, for his kind invitation and the opportunity to discuss the topic with many great legal minds. Acknowledgements are also due to Athena Cykes for her unique insights, Phoenix Wright for his invaluable advice both past and present, and to the late Dhurke Sahdmadhi (1983-2028), without whom this opportunity for legal reform would not have been possible.
Notes:
[1] Widely reported in international news, 19th May 2028. For typical report see: BBC News, ‘Khura’in monarch deposed during trial of revolutionary leader’
[2] Trial transcripts for Sahdmadhi vs Crown of Khura’in, 19th May 2028 and Sigatar Khura’in vs Crown of Khura’in, 1st June 2028
[3] Travelle Writeur, ‘Coupable et jamais innocenté: un pays sans avocats’, Détours en France, 5th April 2026
[4] Khura’in Office of National Statistics, legal report November 2027. These statistics place Khura’in as having some of the lowest crime rates in the world, above only Borginia and Taiwan
[5] Thanks is due to the Defiant Dragons History Project for their ongoing work. For pieces published in English, see: Nahyuta Sahdmadhi, ‘Public mourning in post-revolutionary Khura’in’, Religious Studies Review, Winter 2028 and Acha d’Meek, ‘Implications of recent legal and political revolutions in south Asia’, Global Political Review, Summer 2030
[6] Trial transcript for Sahdmadhi vs Crown of Khura’in, 19th May 2028
[7] See continued attempts to reform legal practise in the US state of California, including the failure to introduce any form of jury system despite the success of Misham vs State of California
[8] While we value the comments of some of those who gave us feedback at the conference stage of this paper, the authors reject the comments of Conrad Critian, who wrote of “preaching-filled arrogance from foreign lawyers barely out of the cradle” in his review of the conference proceedings in the Spring 2032 edition of this journal
[9] The veracity of channelling is not, as some anonymous individuals who gave feedback on this article would assert, up for debate in Khura’in. An examination of the trial transcript of any murder trial in Khura’in since records began can verify this
[10] Examples include Ur’gaid vs Crown of Khura’in and Fey vs Crown of Khura’in, but see above for an indication of the breadth of examples theoretically possible to illustrate this
[11] It can be seen in the transcripts of Fey vs Crown of Khura’in that the position of Priestess discourages the judge from disagreeing with her interpretations
[12] Exceptions to the lack of channelling in non-Khura’in trials include cases such as Fey vs State of California (2016), Fey vs State of California (2017), Hawthorne vs State of California (2019)
[13] A recent example includes Fin’der vs Crown of Khura’in, in which the victim was channelled in order to testify about their relationship with the defendant
[14] Trial transcript for Fey vs Crown of Khura’in, 12th May 2028
[15] Noteworthy examples would be Edgeworth vs State of California, Kitaki vs State of California, and Shipley vs State of California. Now is also a prudent time to note that much of the intellectual heritage of this paper is indebted to the unique way in which law is practised in California
[16] Trial transcript for Sigatar Khura’in vs Crown of Khura’in, 1st June 2028
[17] A particularly good example would be Skye vs State of California, in which the prosecution was Miles Edgeworth and the defence was Phoenix Wright
[18] Edgeworth and Wright provide another particularly prudent example here, through Engarde vs State of California
[19] This concept is in part indebted to Athena Cykes and Simon Blackquill, in particular their work in Whet vs State of California
[20] See the transcript for Karkhuul vs Crown of Khura’in, in which the defendant was channelled to testify posthumously
[21] Background information on these individuals can be found in International Informant’s ‘Profile of Global Leaders’ series, with Amara Sigatar Khura’in’s profile published in 2002 and Rayfa Padma Khura’in’s profile published in 2028
[22] Trial transcript for Sahdmadhi vs Crown of Khura’in, 19th May 2028
[23] This is a noted flaw in legal systems such as California’s, where cases have begun before investigations are adequately completed (for example in Fey vs State of California (2016))
[24] With inheritance of this ability believed to be inherited only by individuals assigned female at birth, it is unreasonable to expect that it will be in place in Khura’in in perpetuity
[25] This phase in Khura’inese law began with Faal’srest vs Crown of Khura’in on 22nd May 2028 and ended with Clushone vs Crown of Khura’in on 3rd January 2029
[26] Trial transcript and report for Volutt vs Crown of Khura’in, 14th January 2029
[27] This was queried at conference level; to explain in brief, the authors of this paper were defence and prosecution in the trial that uncovered the truth behind the illegitimacy of Ga’ran Sigatar Khura’in’s rule and, as the foremost prosecutor and only lawyer in Khura’in in the aftermath, were involved in many landmark cases in the subsequent weeks and months
[28] To save this article’s readers an anecdote, one such issue has involved a defence attorney moving between two courtrooms at once, defending one case while acting as counsel to the prosecution in another; the murderer in one was the victim in another
[29] Trial transcript for Hawthorne vs State of California (2019), in which the prosecution obscured his own crime due to dislike for the opposing counsel
[30] Expertise from cases such as Skye vs State of California, Wright vs State of California (2028), Fey vs Crown of Khura'in, and investigations both attached and unattached to court cases across North America, Europe, and Asia.
[31] If a curious reader is interested in a version of this article that goes into more detail about the revolutionary convictions of the authors, an earlier draft is available in Khura’inese in Defiant Dragons vol. 20, iss. 4. The authors can also be contacted for versions translated into English, French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese.
[32] Statistics taken from the Khura’in Office of National Statistics, legal reports of November 2004, November 2027, and November 2031 indicate a fall in conviction disputes by at least 20% when averaging rates during and before the reign of Ga’ran
[33] A survey on legal knowledge conducted by the International Board of Legal Engagement found that understanding of the functioning of Khura’inese law had increased from 31% on average in 2026 to 74% on average in 2031 when presented with comparable questions
[34] There are currently 147 students of Khura’inese Law at universities in Khura’in, taught as a full course for the first time since 2005 from 2030. The first class of 54 lawyers is set to graduate in August 2033