Doctrine of Unity
The Doctrine of Unity (朙壹灋, mrang-’it-pap) is the idea that the whole body of laws, as an emanation of the perpetual, unchanging imperial power, contains no contradictions. As a consequence, unless an exception is found within the law itself, the breaking law cannot be justified by an attempt to uphold another law.
This doctrine was expounded by the Baron of Skran in his published 1487 commentaries on cases before him during his 22-year tenure as a justice in the Imperial Court of Appeal. The principle that laws do not implicitly invalidate each other has been present within the juristic tradition for much time, but it was by Skran it was clearly explained and published. The Doctrine relies on the Principle of the Perpetual Monarchy, which states that the office and appurtenances of monarch continues unchanged, irrespective of the identity of its current holder. The idea reached its maturity during the Themiclesian Republic, which was a 92-year aristocratic oligarchy that saw power pass between several groups of nobles but still functioned under the legal structure of a monarchy.
According to Skran, the Doctrine also embraces the idea that the monarchy is legally infalliable, that is, incapable of doing anything contrary to the law. Of course, it is within the prerogative of the monarchy to make and unmake laws, but Skran recognizes that laws become "a unified body" (眔公身弓) with the monarchy as soon as they are promulgated, meaning they represent the Emperor's will, which his subjects are duty-bound to obey, irrespective of what private opinion he may personally have. Since his laws are one unified body with him and carry his full authority, Skran asserted it is impossible for the laws to have contrary meanings, as they would thereby mean the monarch is internally contradictory and that the imperial authority works against itself.
Above the difficulties in reasoning, two contradicting laws would open each other to legitimate questioning by subjects, if they should direct them to divergent actions. That is because to have two laws for one situation is like to have two legislators and therefore also two sovereigns, which seems to me preposterous: if a sovereign is to exist, he must be unique within his realm, and if there be two so-called sovereigns, then neither shall be sovereign. The doubt generated whereunder may also expose all laws to illegitimate doubt, at which point no coherent Government is possible, if there be no proper authority: and there is Anarchy.
Cases invoked
Gross Conspiracy
In 1906, an enormous conspiracy involving both military and civilian individuals was exposed, leading to hundreds of trials during the Conservative administration of the Baron of Krungh. Apparently, the group had been motivated by Krungh's apparent diplomatic weakness and sought to depose the incumbent administration and replace it with something nebulous. Pvt. Kirem, for his part, unable to retain a defence counsel, defended himself with the claim that one of his enlistment oaths required him to swear to obey a superior's commands. One of the co-conspirators was indeed his superior officer. However, the bench charged the jury with the following words:
The doctrine of unity, expounded by the Baron of Skran over 500 years ago, tells us that the duty of obey one law does not at all affect the duty to obey other laws. The noble Baron taught that the laws are of one body with the Sovereign, and to break one is like to break another, and his subjects shall obey every one of his laws, for they are altogether one Thing, that is the Sovereignty and the law are the very same, that is the Sovereign is the law, and the law the Sovereign, and that to be the subject of the Sovereign is to be a subject of his laws. Thus, speaking hypothetically, it makes no more sense to say a soldier's duty to report to a place permits him to seize another person's horse and ride it to that place, or rob a bank to pay for an railway ticket thither, than to say the duty to obey superior officers absolves the most heinous crime of conspiring to seize or kill His Majesty's ministers. That is the position of the law.
Kirem was therefore convicted and sentenced to be seized into the Emperor's hands as a slave.