International laws and the charter
The charter government is just a legislature. There are no treaties, no ambassadors or embassies, no foreign relations of any kind. It seems like a recipe for extreme isolation, but I think humans are too clever and people like money much to let that get in the way. Charter exporting companies would comply with foreign product standards, foreign import rules, whatever it takes. Foreign countries would find some way to accept Chartertopia IDs in lieu of passports, possibly maintaining offices on Chartertopia to issue temporary IDs for travel to their country.
What there can't be is any recognition of foreign or international laws inside Chartertopia. If a foreign country wants to extradite a native who fled to Chartertopia, they just need to send their police over and — gasp! — kidnap him and take him home. Of course, locals might not appreciate that, and they would surely outnumber the foreign police. On the other hand, international extradition is usually reserved for serious crimes, like murder, and charter redress is simple and fast enough that it wouldn't take long to convict the murderer, and then he'd be an outlaw owing so much that he couldn't complain about being kidnapped. Or the foreign country might decide that the charter conviction is good enough and pay to keep him locked up in Chartertopia rather than dragging him back home for a long slow legacy trial.
An escaped prisoner is a different problem. The foreign country probably thinks it outrageous that it should have to hold a "new" charter trial to convict someone again for a 10 or 20 year old crime. But if the original trial was a real travesty and he really is innocent, charter redress is probably the best chance he's got to prove it, and there would be no shortage of charterites and even foreigners making it impossible for the foreign police to kidnap and take him back. Refusal to participate makes one wonder why he fled to Chartertopia and turns him into an ordinary malingerer, and the original trial evidence is probably good enough to repeat the foreign conviction.
Even ordinary drug dealers might not be safe, even though Chartertopia has no illegal contraband or taboos. But drug dealers aren't known for being nice honest businessmen, and even if murder conviction is hard, his drugs might not be pure (perjury! with the huge issue at stake of all the plausible victims of his tainted drugs), and sloppy handling can always be a threat. Adults get to do whatever they want, but try selling drugs to children and find out what charterite parents think.
Deportation is for immigrants who committed crimes domestically. The basic question is whether the foreign country wants to take custody of the criminal. I don't know why this happens now. It's one thing to take custody of an illegal immigrant who hasn't committed any "real" crime, but a murderer, a rapist, a real criminal? Why would the foreign country want the expense? Maybe that's part of the treaties, that the home country has to take custody of their citizens who commit a crime in foreign countries. Since there are no such treaties with Chartertopia, and Chartertopia has no contraband, taboo, or other victimless crimes, criminals are real thugs who have murdered, raped, stolen, or otherwise done real harm in Chartertopia, and I doubt foreign countries would want to come get them. Cheaper to just leave them in Chartertopia lockup.
This all brings me to this interesting article about the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its effects on the British legal system. Seems pretty bonkers, but of course this is a partisan article, and who knows how many other cases they have are just ordinary and boring.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has long baffled and angered the British public. Hardly a week goes by, it seems, without an activist judge, armed with the convention, decreeing that a dangerous, violent criminal must be spared deportation and should remain in the UK. Such decisions are becoming so egregious that even Keir Starmer's Labour government, which has repeatedly stated its fealty to the convention, has started to call for reform.
Read it if you want. I'm going to quote the abuses and mention how the charter would handle them.
A recent pair of cases illustrate this all too clearly. Two men, both living illegally in the UK, are wanted in their native Brazil for murder and rape respectively. Marlon Martins Dos Santos was sentenced to 14 years in prison for "repeatedly raping" a five-year-old child, but then fled to the UK before he was jailed. Nicolas Gomes de Brito is wanted back home for allegedly ordering the murder of a rival gang member. Yet Brazil's attempts to extradite both men have failed. Why? Because British judges ruled it would breach Article 3 of the ECHR. The judges concluded, for reasons only they can truly fathom, that being sent to jail in Brazil would breach the conventions rules against "torture and inhumane treatment".
Brazil might well torture prisoners; most countries have enough sadistic guards and deranged prisoners that it's easy to call actions torture. But while that might piss off charterites in petty cases, murder and child rape won't get any sympathy. The Brazilian police might not even have to get a charter conviction if the criminals are notorious enough, but this child rapist was already convicted, so his charter trial would be pretty short. This alleged murderer would take longer.
Last year, a Bangladeshi man convicted of murdering his wife escaped deportation on the same Article 3 grounds. The judge found that because he had "converted" to Christianity, he would be at risk if he was deported to Bangladesh.
If the murder and trial were in Chartertopia, he'd be an outlaw in lockup for a long long time. If Bangladesh did want him back, possibly for the sin of converting to Christianity, charter Christians might take custody of him first and not let Bangladesh have him. But wife murdering? Not a very sympathetic character, and murder restitution is a lot of money which could help a lot more elsewhere.
Or take the case of Xhoni Leka, an Albanian drug boss who operated a cannabis factory in Cumbria. In March, it was reported that an immigration judge halted his deportation because it would deprive his daughter of a "male role model". This, it was argued, would breach Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees one's "right to family life".
Eh, contraband. Not only wouldn't a "cannabis factory" be a crime, it probably wouldn't even exist. This particular case makes one wonder how prison (surely he is in prison if he's deportable) doesn't also deprive the daughter of a "male role model". Did the court order she live in prison with him? Would not foster parents provide a better "male role model"? Why couldn't she go with him when he was deported, if him being her "male role model" was so important?
But aside from that ... this is nonsense. The idea that you can't punish a criminal because of the side effects is just plain nuts. If you murder your parents, you don't get to throw yourself on the mercy of the court for being an orphan. Every conviction effects family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and communities. The crime is the criminal's original sin, and the foreseeable consequences are on him. Charter charities would take care of the daughter, and she could always visit her father in prison once in a while.
Take the Albanian money launderer who avoided deportation because his son dislikes foreign "chicken nuggets".
Money laundering is too vague to even tell if it would have happened in Chartertopia, let alone violate someone's self-control. But the excuse? I bet there's more to the story than his son's taste in chicken nuggets. It's also not clear why the son would have to go with him if he were deported. Surely if that were the only obstacle, it would have applied to being imprisoned too. Is there a wife or other family who were taking care of the son while the father was in jail?
Or the Jamaican drug dealer who was allowed to remain in the UK because he has a child who identifies as trans.
Again, no contraband, but adulteration of the drugs or selling to children would have violated self-control and made him an extreme outlaw. The trans aspect is different from chicken nuggets as far as personal danger, but then adopt the child out, leave her/him/it with relatives or friends. If Jamaica wanted to extradite the criminal (but why would they?), well, original sin and foreseeable consequences again. Illegal drug dealing is not known as a safe occupation; perhaps the father should also have been charged with child endangerment. Some charter charity would take care of the child.
Recently, it was reported that Pakistani national Qari Abdul Rauf, who in 2012 was jailed for raping and trafficking a 15-year-old girl in Rochdale, managed to avoid deportation because he was able to invoke his ECHR "right to family life".
He'd be in charter jail for the rest of his life. I doubt Pakistan would want him back, unless they wanted to reinforce the stereotype that Pakistani men are more prone to child rape than other nationalities. If they wanted him, their biggest problem would be convincing the charter public that they were actually going to imprison him rather than just let him go. I'm guessing this is all related to that huge scandal in Britain right now about politicians covering up the thousands of girls raped by Pakistani men over the last 10-20 years, because they didn't want to offend the immigrants.