The corporate (brudderschaft refined?) approach now apparently greasing the mechanisms of international diplomacy courtesy of the administration from New Amsterdam can be very effective. I wonder if the recent events in Yemen and Turkey might be the fruits of gears spinning sub silento, while the domestic agenda is captive to ludicrous things like the personal gift of a (flying) palace to the president by a foreign state. This sort of governance can be effective, because effectiveness, as with the Norman pirates arriving on British soil, is the reason for the existence of these forms.
But once the specific objectives have been achieved (and the losing side in the second really-big war was quite an effective state at first, using much the same commerce-focused policymaking toolkit), one is still faced with the almost immeasurably larger questions of general governance.
Will the "Laws of the Confessor" survive?