To Isbella: "Not on a global level, is what I meant. Each polity has its own concepts of standardization and its own ways it makes exceptions to that."

To Darjo: Sure!

And, for Hallos, the main diplomatic official seems to be the leader of the group, Jirinet Clarel.

"Given that you don't have multiple planets, I'm really not at all surprised that you don't have global standardization."

Then he will walk over to her.  

"I can't actually make any commitments on behalf of any human organizations, but we should begin talking about what we want long-term relations between humans and Krissan to look like.  I assume you would be interested in trade, and potentially in joining the interplanetary colonization coalition?"

(To Isbella: Yes, that does make sense.)

To Hallos: "Actual commitments on our behalf would require far more time spent negotiating - but, yes, I suspect a good portion of us will be interested in trade and interplanetary travel."

"Do you think any of your polities would want to send a delegation to visit human planets? Should I be preparing to argue for or against presenting your countries with various multinational treaties to consider signing? The colonization coalition doesn't actually do travel, it handles colonizing, instead of various planets going out and colonizing planets."

"I think some will want to send delegations, and we'll be interested in at least looking at multinational treaties - though we'll need to have a serious debate about our own political future, especially if the usual political system is on a planetary scale. Colonization efforts would likely be joint, for one..."

"The colonization system we have in place is set up specifically to keep any existing polities from having control over newly colonized planets.  There's a provisional government that gets set up on the new planet that is intended to handle governance until they figure out how they want to rule themselves going forward, but even that is managed entirely by citizens of the new colony."

"That seems like a reasonable system."

"It has worked well for us.  It will be interesting to see how your world handles joining interstellar society."

"I expect there'll be some bumps, or at least an adjustment period..."

"I hope that interstellar society will do our own adjusting as well.  It will certainly be interesting, we'll have to rewrite a lot of laws that specify that something only applies to humans so that they can include Krissan as well"

"Can you give me examples of some of the applicable ones?"

"Hmm.  Murder is defined as the intentional and avoidable killing of a human being by a human being, for example."

"Yeah, that'd be one that'd really need patching... Our legal codes are a bit different, I think, though we'll also want to prompt countries to look theirs over to make sure they doesn't have any similar loopholes."

"We also have a tendency to refer to universal rights as human rights, and that is, I think, actually the language used in several documents."

"We might also have a different idea of sapient rights than humans - I'd be surprised if we lined up everywhere, actually."

"I'd expect there are rather a lot of differences.  What sorts of things do you consider to be sapient rights?"

"Right to food, clean water, shelter, clean air, access to nature, education, access to art, to be free of pain, to not be subjected to psychological torture, to be free from discrimination based on unchangeable characteristics, to preserve your culture and religion and language, privacy, access to information, leisure..."

"We lean more into freedoms.  Right to immigration, right to express your beliefs, right to practice your religion, that sort of thing."

"I'd be surprised if we approached things the same, even if the end goals are similar."

"We also tend away from overly restricting what different planets and countries do, a lot of individual places have things like the right to food or the right to housing."

"There is a lot of individual variation - most sapient rights aren't strongly enforced internationally, just agreed upon as ideals, even if individual countries don't live up to those. And they're... We have a difference between 'productive rights' and 'status rights.' You have the right to be informed, but that is a status right - states are not obligated to provide information, just to not restrict it, though in discussing a state internationally they are often judged on their results, whether individuals have information - no matter how they get it. Most rights are status rights, and the main productive rights are the negative rights - the right to not be in a certain state, which sometimes requires state action."

"It seems like we phrase things differently- we would say a right to access to information, not the right to be informed, for example, and we do have a codified document of human rights that countries are strongly encouraged to sign on to, and which does require you to insure those rights- it's bundled with an agreement that bans what are called beneficial invasions, so while signed on and compliant other countries can't invade you or attack you to make you change your system of governance or treatment of your citizens."

"Ours functions similarly - generally it's more understood that the main reason a state should guarantee rights is so its population doesn't call for foreign intervention."