Devil’s Advocate

[Silky Gooseness]

So, I came across this amusing screenshot on The Internets:[/url]

And it got me thinking: what are the legalities here??

Is Sauron an acknowledged lord of another country? Seems like he might be, if you consider the declaration that the heralds shout when the last last alliance are marching on the Black Gate. The mission to the Dwarves also seemed to be diplomacy (nominally, at least), rather than open intimidation.

Could the Nazgûl be said to have been “in hot pursuit” when chasing after the retrieval of the Ring?

What about Saruman? How legal are his actions?

I’ll hear anyone out…

[Rivvy Elf]

With Arnor being reduced to a mere paramilitary organization, the only legitimacy one could consider the Shire as an independent country is only by respecting the rules of the Shire itself. Which was why they had a Thain. There's a reason why Aragorn had to make a declaration when the kingdoms reunited that the Shire essentially become its own thing, barring any non-Hobbit from willynilly visiting the place.

And that was because the Shire's sovereignty was not internationally legally enforceable. I'm assuming that they did not send emissaries towards all the other fiefdoms in Middle-Earth when they declared themselves under a Thain rather than the dissolved Northern Kingdom. So foreign countries like Mordor could trespass into the Shire, only being blocked by a paramilitary organization called the Dunedain that no longer had a landed ruler but a "Chieftain," whatever that is.

So Sauron was not doing anything internationally illegal here from my analysis.

Saruman was a minion under Sauron who was trying to become his own entity. His forces essentially became a paramilitary force once Isengard was lost. His actions I would argue follow under the common law of the Shire, and thus his actions in the Scouring of the Shire are illegal.

[Arnyn]

This is highly amusing. A first I think, sure, Sauron could sue Frodo to get his ring back, on the account of it being made by him, owned by him and being stolen.

However, the timeline for the Lord of the Rings does present a first difficulty: he tries to get it back after, what, 3000 years? Statute of limitations could be problematic.

Not to mention acquisition by prescription / adverse possession. In several countries, who would be considered the rightful owner would be determined by how long they have been the owner. I've read about it taking 10, 20 or 30 years. In either case, Gollum held the ring for over 500 years. That would mean Sauron first lost ownership to Gollum. And after Gollum, Bilbo had it for over 60 years, right? That would mean ownership then passed from Gollum to Bilbo. And since Bilbo officially left it to Frodo, I would say: No. Sauron could not sue for the ring back.

[Silky Gooseness]

In countries where a significant number of people are immortal, though, you’d think statutes of limitation would be lengthened to take into account increased lifespans? Not to mention that the Ring itself a) causes a lengthened lifespan just by possessing it, and b) might be classified as a weapon of mass destruction and under such terms, might be confiscated by any international court? Not that one exists…

Consider, moreover, that the line of Isildur has a legal claim to the Ring. Isildur takes it as weregild, which is very specifically a legal claim to compensation, in the form of claiming the Ring, due to the wrong Sauron committed in slaying his father.

[Arnyn]

Looking at Isildur’s will... he declares it an heirloom of rhe North Kingdom and not specifically his line...

“The Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North Kingdom…”

Surely it is what he meant (his heirs) but legal specifics can be a bother. It is not what the text actual says. He specifically states “the North Kingdom” as the beneficiary. Does that mean it would be in some sort of public trust? And since the north kingdom has ceased to exist for a long time... again, debatable in a court of law I think?

Now I would assume that the title would go back to the line of Isildur if the court ruled Arnor had indeed ceased to exist - if they claimed it. But they never did.

So then onto Gollum...

Now I just read that apparently there are some conditions for acquisition by prescription. One of them is the ownership should be known/notorious. Which is a problem for both Gollum, Bilbo and even Frodo. None of them owned it notoriously for long enough...

Aragorn and Frodo would be the best contenders. And since Aragorn decided not to take it.. Frodo has the best claim?

[Silky Gooseness]

That is interesting actually given that it’s an heirloom of a kingdom now non-extant. Could you make a claim on it similarly to the crown - thus, Aragorn? Does Aragorn specifically forfeit his claim or just leave it in abeyance - to be stewarded by Frodo, rather than owned? Or are there salvage laws that might apply here? UK law says you can keep property that is abandoned, after a certain amount of time - but it has to be abandoned and not just *lost*. Unless you’re on transport for london in which case you get three months and then you’re SOL.