Yanus Protocol

The Yanus Protocol is collection of laws by the Church of Titanius that primarily concerning regulating relations and interactions between ecclesiastical and secular authorities, ecclesiastical and secular laws. The Yanus Protocol was first signed in the Kingdom of Froturn at an unknown time (see further in History), and since that time, the rulers of the Kingdom of Etrand and the Principality of Artaburro have joined in following the Yanus Protocol.

History
The Yanus Protocol is definitely older than the Kingdom of Etrand, but its development in Froturn is not exactly clear. The sovereignty of the Church of Titanius is something that developed gradually. For example, during the reign of Queen Taela the Wise, the Great Reformer, who ruled Froturn between 811 and 625 BEKE, the Church was firmly under the government's control, with the Hierophant being appointed by the reigning monarch. It was under the rule of King Naeredus the Missionary, who ruled between 289 BEKE and 38 AEKE, that we see the first written mentions of the Yanus Protocol itself. The original records of the protocol itself refer and appeal to pre-established traditions and historical privileges bestowed upon the Church by the royal family, meaning that there was a gradual transition from the state-controlled church of 625 BEKE to the sovereign church of 38 AEKE. The Yanus Protocol came under threat during the reign of the Dictator Vaclus Helviatha, who was purging dissenting senators, and had several run-ins with the church when the church was putting under protection senators he wanted to purge. King Cael'mus, while being known for his impiety, did not formally ever challenge the Yanus Protocol, instead merely angered the church by openly favoring "infidels" (Naturalists) and employing them - such as Ta'ael Myrth'nddare - in his government. The rule of Ardryllus Sim'vara however, did come as a threat to the protocol once again, as Sim'vara had an ambition to pressure the church to lay off clergimen who supported the rebellion against his predecessor during the Froturnish Civil War - the Church responded by playing the game of passive resistance. The new king Ivahó, a friend of the church assured the church that the Yanus Protocol would be upheld and respected.

During the rule of the Corlagonid dynasty of Etrand. the situation of the Church was ambigious - while the rulers of said dynasty bestowed various privileges to the Church, they only accepted and respected the Church's sovereignty when it suited them. King Hereric of the Hengistid dynasty for example exercised heavy royal control over the Church, and it was up to his successor Sighard the Builder to mend relations with the church and fully ratify the Yanus Protocol in Etrand. The Yanus Protocol once again came under attack during the reign of the Tondbertid King Calder the Unready, who also attacked the nobility of Etrand in his quest to centralize and increase royal authority. His successor Bryant, while had ambitions to weaken the church, decided not to touch the Yanus Protocol.

In the Principality of Artaburro, the Yanus Protocol has been accepted as law ever since the foundation of the state. Its rulers have always respect it and never attempted to challenge it.

Laws
The Yanus Protocol primarily defines the norms of interaction between religious and secular authorities, and proclaims the procedures that need to be followed in event of conflicts of interest:
 * The Church of Titanius is realized as an entity separate from the various states, a separate entity with its own laws and right to detain individuals it claims to be its subjects. As such, the Church of Titanius is effectively a sovereign state with enclaves (churches, monasteries, bishoprics) within kingdoms whose sovereigns swore to uphold the protocol. This gives all titanist subjects of said kingdoms a status akin to dual citizenship, as these individuals are subjects of both the Church and their respective King.
 * The land upon which churches and monasteries are built is usually not permanently gifted or sold to the Church, but most often leased indefinitely. The facilities themselves however - as the materials they are built from - are church property, therefore it is a necessity to financially compensate the Church for territorial re-acquisition.
 * If a Titanius-following subject of a sovereign who has vowed to uphold the protocol commits to an action that is criminalized by Church laws but not secular laws, he or she is to be punished according to Church laws.
 * The Sovereign has the right to veto the verdict the Church has given.
 * The Sovereign enjoys immunity to corporeal sanctions from the Church such as imprisonment or execution, but may be still subject to non-corporeal sanctions from the Church, such as fines or obligations to undo an edict. Failure to comply with Church orders may lead to excommunication.
 * The Sovereign has the right to grant immunity to any subject of his or her state, but the given person may only enjoy that immunity while residing in that state, and most likely gets forbidden from entering church property even within said state.
 * If a Titanius-following subject of a sovereign who has vowed to uphold the protocol commits to an action that is criminalized by secular laws but not by Church laws, he or she is to be punished according to secular laws.
 * The Hierophant has the right to veto the verdict the secular authorities have given, but only under the condition that the accused is to be placed under Church protection (essentially house arrest within facilities owned by the Church) or exiled from the state that wishes to punish the aforementioned individual.
 * The Hierophant enjoys immunity to both personal punishment and any other types of sanctions from all secular authorities.
 * The Hierophant has the right to grant immunity to any Titanius-following individual, but the given person may only enjoy that immunity while absent from the country that wishes to punish the aforementioned individual or residing under church property.
 * When Church laws and secular laws conflict in the criminalization of an action - such as a conflict in the magnitude of punishment for the crime, or one of the two specifically defines the act as not a crime - the two sides are required to make a compromise.