THE ARCHITECTURE OF A "STATE WITHIN A STATE
Topic:
The use of English common law by authoritarian regimes to create extraterritorial
financial enclaves. Dear Safar Bekzhon! Your analysis of the situation surrounding the
"Tashkent City" and "Yangi Toshkent" projects is absolutely accurate. Removing these
territories from the jurisdiction of the Constitution of Uzbekistan and creating a zone
regulated by English common law is not a unique anomaly, but a proven "industry
standard" currently employed by dictatorships and kleptocracies worldwide. This
phenomenon is known as extraterritorial financial jurisdiction. Below are examples from
global practice demonstrating that the implementation of English common law is in no
way linked to the democratization of a country.
=========================================
GLOBAL EXAMPLES (Where this has been implemented) KAZAKHSTAN (AIFC
— Astana International Financial Centre):
A direct and immediate parallel to the project in Uzbekistan. In the capital of
Kazakhstan, a territory has been legally designated where the laws and Constitution of
the Republic of Kazakhstan do not apply. Mechanism: English common law operates
exclusively within the AIFC territory. Legal proceedings are conducted in English, and the
judiciary is composed of British lords and retired judges invited from the UK. Rationale:
Kazakhstan’s elite created an internal offshore zone to legitimize massive profits from
the oil and gas sector. This scheme allows Western investors and the oligarchs
themselves to litigate disputes in a "clean," British-style zone—without leaving the
country—rather than resorting to the corrupt courts of Almaty. UAE (DIFC in Dubai and
ADGM in Abu Dhabi):
The absolute monarchies of the Persian Gulf have established fully independent legal
enclaves within their territories.
Mechanism: These are financial "states within a state," possessing their own courts,
police forces (and financial regulators), as well as company registries that operate
exclusively under English law. Local UAE courts, governed by Sharia and civil law, have
no jurisdiction there. Rationale: Integration into global capital. The emirs understand
that global business does not operate according to Sharia law; consequently, they
acquired a "British legal franchise" to ensure investment protection.
CHINA (Hong Kong and Macau):
The classic "One Country, Two Systems" model. Essence: Historically, the Chinese
Communist Party has used Hong Kong (with its legal system based on English law) as a
massive money-laundering mechanism. The Party elite amass fortunes amidst the
harsh, repressive regime within China itself, yet they handle capital flight, fund creation,
and the resolution of legal disputes exclusively through Hong Kong’s British-style
system. This allows them to shield the population from freedoms while simultaneously
enjoying all the benefits of Western capital protection mechanisms.
UNITED KINGDOM (The City / City of London): The historical prototype for all such
zones. Mechanism: The City of London is not merely a district of the capital but a
distinct corporation (the City of London Corporation). It has its own police force and
Lord Mayor, and the UK Parliament’s influence over the City’s internal processes is
extremely limited. The essence: This zone was created—and is maintained to this day—
to shield global financial capital from direct state interference. It serves as an ideal
instrument for managing transnational capital flows.
HONDURAS (ZEDE — Zones for Employment and Economic Development)
: A radical form of the "corporate state." The mechanism: The national government
legislatively authorized foreign corporations to purchase sovereign territory, establish
their own laws and courts, and hire private police forces. The essence: Transforming the
country into a corporate colony. The people of Honduras rose up upon realizing that elite
enclaves were being created within the country—zones where local citizens possess no
rights whatsoever. =========================================
THE UZBEK REGIME’S TRUE OBJECTIVES Establishing a zone in Tashkent that operates
under English law serves three pragmatic goals: Institutional segregation (apartheid for
the elite): The regime is splitting Uzbekistan into two worlds. Thirty-five million citizens
will continue to live under repressive, inefficient laws and the arbitrary actions of corrupt
police and courts.
Meanwhile, the ruling family, loyalist oligarchs, and Western corporations will reside in
"New Tashkent," a place governed by the civilized norms of British law and characterized
by absolute legal immunity. Protecting illicitly acquired wealth in the event of a change
of power: dictatorial regimes are inherently unstable. Those in power understand that if
the regime falls tomorrow, new leaders could confiscate their palaces and bank
accounts through local courts. However, if the elite's assets are structured under
English law, they can only be seized through protracted international legal proceedings
in London. In essence, they are creating a "legal bunker" for their c...
...assets to safeguard themselves against the loss of power. Guarantees for
transnational plunder:
Swiss corporations (such as Glencore)—which extract $6.3 billion worth of gold in the
country—demand robust guarantees.
They do not trust the Constitution of Uzbekistan... They require a jurisdiction based on
English law so that no local prosecutor can freeze their accounts or launch an
investigation into activities linked to gold and uranium supply chains. CONCLUSION:
The introduction of English law in Tashkent is not a step toward freedom for Uzbekistan.
It is the final stage in the country's privatization and the creation of an offshore money-
laundering mechanism designed to legitimize billions in raw-material sales proceeds
under the secure protection of British law. Your assertion that this constitutes a new
form of colonialism is fully borne out by global practice.