journal

A Trekker Confronts International Law

An ongoing journaling project, by Sängerin

Am I an idealist because I watch Star Trek, or am I a Trekker because I am an idealist? This is a question I have been thinking about for the past few months, but until now I haven’t put anything down on paper/screen.

So, why now? Because I’m now studying International Law - which may not seem at all like a logical reason and maybe Tuvok and Spock would have some arguments with my logic. But I find I am having a great deal of trouble with International Law, which I suspect may be to do with the fact that I am a Trekker. I suspect that my world view is based on the unified Earth of Star Trek - particularly in The Next Generation - rather than on harsh, mostly economic, reality.

The document that follows will, I envisage, turn into a sort of journaling exercise over the next twelve weeks or so, while I think through some of these issues, including: the relevance and equivalence of the Prime Directive, the equivalents to International Law in Trek, such as Interstellar Law (eg Chang’s quote in TUC), the intellectual divide set up between Paris and San Francisco, and the functions of those two Earth ports. Who knows, maybe this will turn into an essay of sorts…if it does, I'll work on it in a separate file. In this one, the ideas will be put down as they come.

It makes it sound like this is a serious, thesis-like endeavour. I wish it were, but somehow, even among books on management theory, economics, and serious academic discussions like "Star Trek: The Human Frontier", I’m not sure any University would accept a study of personal reactions to International Law by a Trekker, and I’m not even sure that anyone other than me would have any interest in such things.

However, what else is a web page for but to test interest and reactions?? So, here goes…

Entry 1 - March 13, 2000

This whole thing stems from my inkling that somehow, my uneasiness with International Law is the result of a world view influenced by the amount of Star Trek I watch, read, and write. Mother, if you are reading this, that should in no way be taken to support your theory that a) I watch too much TV, b) I buy and read too many Star Trek books, or c) that writing fanfic is a waste of time. I don't and it's not. I just can't prove it scientifically.

My world view - what I'm wondering is whether I forget that this world is still made up of bitterly divided nation states, or whether I approach international law thinking that Earth has a unified government with an office in Paris. Now, I'm not saying I'm obsessed to the point of not knowing what's reality and what isn't - well, maybe I am, and that's for you to judge. But Star Trek is an idealistic set up - particularly in NextGen, which is the point at which I was introduced to the franchise. In a recent book, "Star Trek: The Human Frontier", which I have glanced through at the store but can't afford to buy, Barrett and Barrett (no relation to Majel, apparently) argue that NextGen represented the height of modern 'Enlightenment' thinking, whereas Voyager and DS9 are far more 'post-modern' in their thinking. I can see their point, at least on a surface level. Both Voyager and DS9 introduced elements of religion, uncertainty, cultural specificity, and various other 'stumbling blocks' to the "Enlightenment" project. My argument has always been (as Julia, Anita, and others at the about.com Fanfic Forum could tell you) that whether we like it or not, Trek is grounded in the time it is created. It has to speak to now, and to the typical person now, not the Trekker who could quite easily live in the 24^th century of Roddenbury's creation if some temporal anomaly happened to transport said Trekker there.

Notice that I make this 'relativity' argument - in fact, it could be classed as a 'cultural relativity' argument (shock, horror) - at the same time as I am analysing my own "24^th Century" reaction to International Law. This is what I do. I analyse. To excess perhaps. Maybe in the following weeks, this should be my mantra - "Trek is grounded in reality - and so are you. Just remember what 'reality' is."

So, I guess, here and now, I'm throwing a question to the readers of this journal, should there be any. Do you find yourself expecting world powers to act sensibly, to talk to each other, rather than start shooting, because in your head is the vision that one day Earth will be one planet, with a planetary government? Or am I the only one who manages to be this idealistic? I'm honestly interested in your opinions - there's an e-mail addy at the bottom of this file. (No flames, please.)

But - on to today's class…my Professor talked today about the 'success' of international law, and how to measure such success. Success, she said, is in the mundane…and such success gets hidden by the front page news disasters. The 'mundane' is the International Postal Union, which works perfectly, apparently (even if someone managed to lose a Christmas present I sent to Vienna, and a video of Endgame is yet to materialise!). The mundane includes the law of the sea, airspace treaties, and various other 'day to day' things…the front page news - the refusal of Australia to listen to any statements of International law that don't suit them (and Australia isn't the only country that does that), the huge stuff ups - all that is out of the ordinary. But it's big news, and that's the aspect of international law that gets the coverage.

I have to admit, I'd never really thought about the IPU or airspace treaties, negotiations between various customs organisations, etc. To me, the really important International Law is the front page news…the areas where the UN and the whole system of International Law is basically toothless. That's the stuff that irks me, that concerns me…that the Australian government can call the UN names for months until the International Narcotics Control Board comes out with a ruling that the PM agrees with, and suddenly he thinks international law is great…that 126 nation States have signed the Rome Statute for the formation of the International Criminal Court, but that only 24 (or so) have ratified it…that I know that the US never will. That the US has world leading Foreign Torts legislation, but is petrified that one of its own citizens might be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Humanity, peoples! Americans are human, too…. I watch the world fragmenting into smaller and smaller nations because human beings obviously cannot get along with one another…and it really hurts me.

I'm going to stop for this week before I get too depressed. But stay tuned.

Entry 2 - March 26^th

Obviously I'm not managing the "weekly" thing very well. But hey - I had a busy week last week, courtesy of Tripod (don't we all love 'em, she says with a forced grin…) quite apart from Uni, which also kept me busy.

Anyway, I'm going to lead off with a quote from Peter David, author of far too many wonderful Star Trek books to name them all, but "Q-squared" and "Imzadi II: The Triangle" are must-reads. Anyway, this is what he says in the introduction to "Q-in-Law";

"Considering that the world is currently choking in drugs, pollution, disease and decay, Gene [Roddenbury's] vision gives us something to cling to…and lets us dream of a time when the madness is over, and we no longer need to worry about destroying ourselves through our own neglect, but instead about being destroyed by cybernetic dreadnoughts or superhuman beings…. That didn't come out right at all. Obviously mankind's (sic) life is never going to be perfection, even in the future. But at least in the future of Trek, when we meet the enemy, he (sic) will not…be us."

Peter David, "Introduction" Q-in-Law (New York, Pocket Books, 1990) xii-xiii.

I'm not saying I entirely agree with the great Mr David on this point - and I certainly don't agree with his use of gender specific language - but the various nuances and aspects of that quote bear thinking about. Which is why I just copied it out.

And before I really get going, a note. I haven't quite decided on the format of this thing yet. As you may have noticed, currently I’m just adding each entry on. That may become cumbersome, however, and changes may appear. I'm sure anyone who is actually reading this can managed to adapt.

Topic - Sources of International Law

And now I finally get around to some proper journaling…at the present time, the recognised sources of International law are;

1) treaties, bilateral or multilateral. Because multilateral treaties tend to be called "Conventions", treaty law is often termed "conventional" law, which can become confusing.

2) customary international law.

3) general principles of law

4) judicial decisions

5) the writings of learned commentators. (Art 38, Statute of the International Court of Justice.)

(Okay – that entry kind of stalled. Sorry.)

Entry 3, April 1 - Domestic Law and International Law

Prepare for ranting, because this is an area that gets me all "het up", even without adding anything about Star Trek. Seeing as most of the people reading this (if there are any) will be Trekkers, I will TRY, very hard, to mention Star Trek every once in a while.

'For writers on international law, however valuable their labours may be in elucidating and ascertaining the principles and rules of law, cannot make the law.'

(per Cockburn CJ, R v Keyn (1876) 2 Ex. D 63)

I am deliberately beginning with Cockburn's cautionary comment, because it's something I need to remind myself of frequently - especially where the domestic/international law relationship is involved. As with most areas of law, there is an accompanying theoretical framework.

The relationship between domestic and international law has turned out to be the topic of my 5000 word, 100% assessment paper. It is written in relation to a specific Australian case - Nulyarimma v Thompson, a case that established that genocide is not a crime in Australia. Horrible, isn't it…and the government appears to have stalled attempts by a minor party to rectify the situation.

Entry 4, April 17 - Mid-term break musings

I found the following passage in a story I wrote recently, and it seems to me that it encapsulates my attitude to International Law. It comes from a DS9/Voyager crossover - Worf, Torres, Jadzia and Kim are discussing the Klingon-Federation War (fifth season DS9/third season Voy):

‘Do you think this war will go on for a long time?’ asked Torres.

Worf paused. ‘How much do you know of our Chancellor, Gowron?’

‘Not much,’ replied B’Elanna. ‘I haven’t been paying much attention to Klingon politics for a long while.’

‘He has been my friend for a long time,’ said Worf seriously. ‘But his primary loyalty is to the Empire, not to the best interests of all.’

‘Isn’t that what you want in a Chancellor?’ asked Harry. Both Worf and Torres looked over at Harry as though he were interrupting a private conversation. ‘What?’ said Harry, recoiling slightly from their glares, his hands up.

‘Sorry, Starfleet,’ said Torres, apologetically. ‘Commander? Would you enlighten Mr Kim?’

‘Go on,’ said Jadzia, adding more softly, ‘I think he’s really quite interested.’

Worf got over his initial annoyance at the young Ensign’s interruption. After all, they were having this discussion in the middle of Voyager’s messhall. ‘It is a good question, Mr Kim. True, loyalty is required in the Chancellor, but our greatest Chancellors, Gorkon and K’mpec, knew that it was at least as important to look after our relationships with the Federation and the Romulans as it was to build up the image of the "glorious Empire". Chancellor Gowron, however, revels in the glory of the Empire and thinks of that before he considers the well-being of the empire."

‘And that’s why he attacked Cardassia?’ asked Torres.

‘Yes,’ said Worf. ‘He was able to pass it off as a war against the Dominion threat, but I believe he had grown restless with the recent peace, and longed for the Empire to flex its muscles.’

From "For the Families"

It's fairly widely recognised that while the Klingons borrow their culture from the Japanese Samurai (as far as the creation of Klingon culture is concerned), politically, they represent the USSR/Russian Federation. Nowhere is this more apparent than in my favourite of the original series films, The Undiscovered Country. "TUC" (as it is known for short) was released in 1991, after the USSR and the Soviet Bloc had begun to break down. In the film, the Klingons, led by the enlightened leader Gorkon, reach out to the Federation for aid in a time of distress. The Federation, despite conspiracy within its own ranks, becomes, for a short time at least, the dominant power in the Alpha and Beta quadrants…just as, in reality, the USA was left as the only superpower. This is the story written within a few years of the end of the Cold War.

My own story, "For the Families", quoted above, was written almost ten years later, at a time when the non-US world is becoming increasingly wary of the US Government's self-perception as the only remaining world leaders. Albeit unconsciously, that wariness translated into my story, again using the Klingons as the protagonists. This time, the current Klingon regime is cast into the position of the USA; Gowron is seen by Worf as overly concerned with the good of the Empire, to the detriment of the good of the Quadrant. To re-cast that in Vulcan terms, for Gowron, the good of the few (the honor of the Empire) is outweighing the good of the many (the continuing peace in the Alpha - and Beta - quadrants.)

Of course, as all good Star Trek fans know, in Trek, the good of the few, or the one, is often meant to outweigh the good of the many (eg, The Wrath of Khan, the Voyager finale, "Endgame",) but that is a debate for another time.

Entry 5, May 4

Topic - The Federation government

What exactly is the structure of the Federation government? Can anyone tell me this? Meg and I were discussing that this week, and the best either of us can come up with is a military dictatorship, which is a very worrying concept. (Anyone involved in Sydney's FSF should leave now, because Meg will probably put all this in an article for the newsletter sometime soon.)

My problem is this: how can I work out the Star Trek equivalents of International Law if I can't even work out their system of government? I was looking in my Chronology (by Mike and Denise Okuda) this evening, trying to find episodes that might give me a clue. The best I could come up with was a single scene in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, and bits here and there in the DS9 double episode, Homefront/Paradise Lost. For a show with, at a guess, over five hundred episodes and nine movies, that is not good!

There is, as a we know, a Federation President. In ST VI, he is "an albino Deltan" (reference, the "Flashback" novelisation by Diane Carey). To me, he always looked very Klingon; a strange irony considering that TUC ushers in the beginning of peaceful relations with the Klingons. In Homefront/Paradise Lost, the President's name is Jaresh-Inyo, and he is considered weak and ineffective by Admiral Lleyton.

The following is the information given in the 1996 edition of the Chronology, on pg 33:

"2161 - The United Federation of Planets is incorporated. Starfleet is established with a charter "to boldly go where no one has gone before." The Federation is governed by a representative Council, located in the city of San Francisco, on Earth, and the Federation council president's office is located in the city of Paris. The Constitution of the Federation includes important protections of individual rights including the Seventh Guarantee, protecting citizens against self-incrimination.

The Federation was first mentioned in Armageddon (TOS)…The Federation Council chambers were established as being in San Francisco in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. The Federation president's office was first seen in ST VI: The Undiscovered Country, and again in Homefront and Paradise Lost (both DS9). In all three cases, the view out the window from the president's office shows the Eiffel Tower and the city of Paris. The Seventh Guarantee was established in The Drumhead (TNG.)"

Having read this, I vaguely remember the scene in ST IV: The Voyage Home. I think I'll have to watch it again. However, the situating of the Federation Council in San Francisco actually lends credence to Meg's and my theory (although, admittedly, I haven't explained this part of the theory to her yet.)

Starfleet, as an institution, is centered on San Francisco. Headquarters are there, Starfleet Academy is there. Phil Farrand has noted (in one of his Nitpickers Guides) the tendency for Earth-centered stories, especially those focused on time-travel, to be situated if not in San Francisco, then on the California coast. (Time's Arrow (TNG) - San Francisco, Past Tense (DS9) - San Francisco, Future's End (VOY) - Los Angeles.) Ignoring the implication that as well as the San Andreas fault, there is also some sort of rupture in the space-time continuum floating over Southern California, one must admit that San Francisco is the center of Starfleet action. San Francisco is an American city, and the implication could be made that there is an identification here between Starfleet, a powerful military organisation, and the modern-day (as in early 21^st century) United States, with its own powerful military organisation, and tendency to act as though it is a global police force (or "sheriff", as I believe it was termed last year.) This may be getting into semantics and trivialities, but has anyone ever noticed the similarity in names? (United Federation of Planets, versus United States of America.) The links are more than just the "United."

Contrasting with the militaristic picture of San Francisco is the office of the Federation president, situated in Paris. Paris - Europe, center of the Enlightenment, a city that does not call up images of armies, but rather of art, beauty, relaxation, and the occasional invasion and occupation…. Until Meg mentioned the lack of real information on the Federation government to me, I had always seen this as a set of polar opposites. A problematic set of opposites, certainly. To a Trek fan, Starfleet are usually the good guys. I say usually in the knowledge of episodes going back at least as far as "Conspiracy" (TNG) through to "Inquisition" (DS9) and "Insurrection" (Star Trek IX). I also say this, writing as I am in those few uncertain weeks before the broadcast of the final episode of Star Trek: Voyager. None of us know how Starfleet will come out of that one, though some of us have our theories and expectations.

So, sometimes Starfleet aren't the guys and gals in the white hats. But it is so easy to forget that they are a military organisation. Certainly, the Federation government doesn't seem to do all that much. By setting up a dichotomy of Paris - San Francisco, Europe - USA, civilian government - Starfleet, the creators have, in my view, made it even easier to forget, especially for an American audience, to whom San Francisco is somewhat familiar, and Paris "foreign" and (dare I say it,) "alien". The problem arises when people like Meg and I start looking behind the dichotomy; when fans get interested in the structure that hasn't been mentioned.

Something tells me this one is going to branch out into a file of its own. For now, I'll wrap this up. But stay tuned…

Entry 6, July 16

Topic - Sovereignty and the Prime Directive

Okay, well, a quick glance at the date of this entry will prove that I haven't done much on this journal for a good two months. I've been busy…passing exams, writing essays, and various other things, some of which will eventually be up on the Internet for "public" consumption.

But to return to the journaling project…we all know about the Prime Directive. I still need to do a little research on this phenomenon - I have a feeling that it didn't become part of the Star Trek universe until TNG. It sounds far more like a Jean-Luc Picard type of thing than a James T Kirk kind of thing. (I was wrong. The PD makes its first appearance in "Bread and Circuses", a second season TOS episode.) In a number of discussions with Law School friends who are also Trek-literate (I like that term!), the concept of the Prime Directive appears to be relatively equivalent to the modern-day concept of sovereignty.

The entire system (if it can be called that) of International Law rests on the concept of sovereignty - the ability of individual nation states to control, what happens within the boundaries of that nation state. The degree to which such control is considered to be absolute can fluctuate between academics. Not surprisingly, those academics and practitioners who are strongly humanitarian call for limits to the extent of sovereignty. Those who are intensely national believe in absolute sovereignty. And naturally, there are opinions all along the spectrum.