United Federation of Planets & Starfleet

[Praetor]

Praetor, you are truly too kind. Muchas gracias.

Hey, no thanks needed. I just call 'em like I see 'em.

I don't think we should look for any such explanation. If we do, it will inevitably seem to imply that the Federation is significantly less egalitarian than the principles of equality and liberal democracy imply it should be. I say we just accept it as a conceit of the drama that we tend to see Human-dominated ships but Starfleet is not Human-dominated -- same way we just accept it as a conceit of the drama that we happen to hear background music and sounds in space even though they aren't "actually" there.

That works for me.

Gotcha. Bear in mind that the Coast Guard does sometimes deploy overseas, though. A close friend of my grandmother's was a USCG officer who served in Vietnam.

True... and that might make one wonder about "local" defense forces within the UFP being deployed/redeployed during wars... hmmm.

 

[Da'an]

The United Federation of Planets was established in 2161. The novel Enterprise: Last Full Measure establishes it to have been on 12 August.

And if another novel gives a different date, then what?

 

[Praetor]

I would hope the editors wouldn't let them...

 

[Sci]

The United Federation of Planets was established in 2161. The novel Enterprise: Last Full Measure establishes it to have been on 12 August.

And if another novel gives a different date, then what?

Then another novel gives a different date, and a reader so engrossed in compiling the minutiae of the Trekverse -- or, since this new movie came out, the Trekverses -- is welcome to pick between one or another as the one that is "real" to them and to regard the other as an alternate continuity.

Having said that, the editors and authors these days generally prefer to keep in close continuity with one-another, with only a few designated projects (such as the Crucible trilogy by David R. George III) being intentionally out of continuity with other novels.

ETA:

When you think about it, if one novel says that the Federation was founded on 12 August 2161, and another says it was founded on, say, 1 January 2161, then, really, it's a similar situation to what exists in the canon with the Prime Trek Universe and the New Trek Universe. In the Prime Trekverse, the planet Vulcan existed well into the 24th Century; in the New Trekverse, it was destroyed in 2158. They're just different Star Trek continuities, and there's no need for one to match up with the other.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

AFAIK, Federation member worlds can - and always could - run their own local affairs pretty much however they want, provided they adhere to minimum standards set forth by the UFP constitution: no caste based discrimination, and one-world governmental state. Beyond that, anything goes, really.

We don't know that, though.

TNG's "Attached" seemed to make it clear enough.

There's no way the UFP would force anyone to stay if they don't want to.

In general, that's probably the case. Of course, you've got to be asking yourself -- what if the world that wanted to leave of was vital strategic or resource importance to the Federation? What if it was a world that the Federation felt it honestly could not survive without?

The Federation can form alliances with worlds that are not members. If a world refused to join, but still had something the UFP needed, I'm sure that temporary terms could be worked out. The UFP simply is not an empire, they don't forcibly annex territory.

If any Federation Member State can leave if the Federation as a whole does something they don't like, what is there to keep the Federation together in the long-run? How can you prevent chaos as everyone packs their bags and goes home because they don't like how the democratic process happens to have played out?

Maybe it's the other way around: Member worlds might be *more* likely to stay in the Federation if they believe their autonomy will be respected. They wouldn't want to be part of a group that would force them, but if the UFP says they can leave whenever they want, they might then feel that they are part of a larger group that respects their individual rights and privileges, and thus would rather take their chances with the UFP than with another organization like the Klingons or Romulans who *would* forcibly annex them.

 

[Sci]

AFAIK, Federation member worlds can - and always could - run their own local affairs pretty much however they want, provided they adhere to minimum standards set forth by the UFP constitution: no caste based discrimination, and one-world governmental state. Beyond that, anything goes, really.

We don't know that, though.

TNG's "Attached" seemed to make it clear enough.

I don't recall "Attached" establishing anything other than that the Federation doesn't usually accept as Members states that do not have universal jurisdiction over their home planets. Certainly I don't recall it establishing anything about the nature of Federation federalism.

In general, that's probably the case. Of course, you've got to be asking yourself -- what if the world that wanted to leave of was vital strategic or resource importance to the Federation? What if it was a world that the Federation felt it honestly could not survive without?

The Federation can form alliances with worlds that are not members. If a world refused to join, but still had something the UFP needed, I'm sure that temporary terms could be worked out. The UFP simply is not an empire, they don't forcibly annex territory.

True. But, there again, even the noblest of democracies sometimes do the wrong thing and violate their own laws. If, say, Planet X joined the Federation as a voluntary Member State, and had more dilithium than any other planet in the galaxy, but then the majority of the populace many years later decided that they wanted to leave the Federation and be annexed by the Romulans -- thus delivering into the hands of a mortal enemy enough dilithium for the Romulan Star Empire to threaten the Federation's very existence -- would they respect that?

I'm not saying they wouldn't, either. I'm just saying that it's unrealistic to expect the Federation to always respect absolutely the wills of its Member States. Even the UFP is self-interested.

If any Federation Member State can leave if the Federation as a whole does something they don't like, what is there to keep the Federation together in the long-run? How can you prevent chaos as everyone packs their bags and goes home because they don't like how the democratic process happens to have played out?

Maybe it's the other way around: Member worlds might be *more* likely to stay in the Federation if they believe their autonomy will be respected. They wouldn't want to be part of a group that would force them, but if the UFP says they can leave whenever they want, they might then feel that they are part of a larger group that respects their individual rights and privileges, and thus would rather take their chances with the UFP than with another organization like the Klingons or Romulans who *would* forcibly annex them.

An excellent point! It still doesn't address the ultimate question of how Federation democracy can function if a minority of Federates can simply withdraw from the social contract any time it does something they don't like, though.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't recall "Attached" establishing anything other than that the Federation doesn't usually accept as Members states that do not have universal jurisdiction over their home planets.

I remember now, it's DS9's "Accession" which states that the Federation forbids caste based discrimination. Those two are really the only universal laws that all members must abide by, that I'm aware of.

If, say, Planet X joined the Federation as a voluntary Member State, and had more dilithium than any other planet in the galaxy, but then the majority of the populace many years later decided that they wanted to leave the Federation and be annexed by the Romulans -- thus delivering into the hands of a mortal enemy enough dilithium for the Romulan Star Empire to threaten the Federation's very existence -- would they respect that?

Maybe not something that drastic. The UFP could have a case that it's high treason. And I'd agree with that.

It still doesn't address the ultimate question of how Federation democracy can function if a minority of Federates can simply withdraw from the social contract any time it does something they don't like, though.

I'm sure the formal process of secession takes time. Maybe in minor cases it's just not worth it. Like I said, even in situations like this, a world might prefer to take its chances that even if the Federation does something they don't like, the Romulans or Klingons or Dominion would do worse.

 

[Sci]

I don't recall "Attached" establishing anything other than that the Federation doesn't usually accept as Members states that do not have universal jurisdiction over their home planets.

I remember now, it's DS9's "Accession" which states that the Federation forbids caste based discrimination. Those two are really the only universal laws that all members must abide by, that I'm aware of.

They're the only two have have been canonically established; this does not mean there are not more.

Further, we know from TNG's "The Drumhead" and VOY's "Author, Author" that there's a provision of the Federation Constitution/Charter called the Guarantees. There are at least twelve of them. The Seventh Guarantee protects all sentient entities from giving self-incriminating testimony during a trial or hearing (in other words, is analogous to the Fifth Amendment) ("The Drumhead"), whilst the Twelfth Guarantee defines an artist as a person who creates a work of art ("Author, Author").

We know from "The Perfect Mate" that any sentient entity aboard a Federation starship is entitled to all of the protections of the Federation Constitution. The implication from "The Drumhead" seems to be that the Guarantees enumerate and protect all Federation citizens and all sentient entities in the territory of or in the custody of the Federation government.

Still, we do not know this for certain. If we accept the idea that the only two rules the Member States must obey are no caste-based discrimination and keep a unified government, this presents the possibility that a Member State government might force a suspect to give self-incriminating testimony, or violate any number of the other Guarantees, and it would be totally legit -- just like how the rights conferred by the US Constitution were regarded as being legal for state governments to circumvent until the advent of the 14th Amendment.

So, ultimately, that's the question: Does the Federation Constitution, or Charter, or the Articles of the Federation, or whatever you want to call it, have an equivalent of the 14th Amendment? Something that says that the rights enumerated and protected by Federation law override attempts to violate them at the Member State level? Something that says the Federation government can overrule local law if there's a conflict? Or do Member States have what the South Carolinians believed they had in the 1820s -- the right of nullification?

We don't really know, because the issue has never come up canonically.

 

[neozeks]

^
I'm pretty sure Federation law does override local law. I'm from Europe and here, the EU, though still very much just an alliance of states and far from a true federal state like the US, does overrule member states' laws (well, not always, there are reccomendations and such, but still it's the principle) . Heck, even UN conventions, even though UN is just a organization of independent states, oblige their signatories. I believe the example of US states you cite simply proved to be unworkable in the long run, and thus was abandoned.

As for why the fleet of the Federation is so much based on UESF, my thoughts are these: we know the Federation was established in the immediate aftermath of the Earth-Romulan War. Now, i know it's called the EARTH-Romulan War, but my theory is that it was just started beetwen them. The actual brunt of the fighting in the first years of the war probably fell on Earth's allies - Vulcans, Andorians, Tellarites, seeing how their fleets were vastly stronger than Earth's - leaving their forces decimated. But they bought time for Earth to build up it's fleet which eventually turned the tide of the war. So Earth actually came out of the war with a much stronger fleet than it's allies (something like how the US, which was rather weaker in terms of ships in comparison to a number of states before WW2, came out the strongest). But the new Federation coming out of the war needed a strong force to protect it, so it was probably most logical for the new force to be built around Earth's forces.

Eh, thinking about this makes me so wish Enterprise had a fifth season (and sixth, and seventh)...

 

[Sci]

^
I'm pretty sure Federation law does override local law.

Personally, I don't see how the Federation could possibly function if it didn't. Certainly for a union of 150 distinct societies, the Federation can't be getting involved in too many of their internal affairs -- the Federation government wouldn't be able to function if it did -- but it would also, I think, have to have the capacity to overrule Member State governments in order to keep it all from flying apart, too.

I'm from Europe and here, the EU, though still very much just an alliance of states and far from a true federal state like the US, does overrule member states' laws (well, not always, there are reccomendations and such, but still it's the principle) . Heck, even UN conventions, even though UN is just a organization of independent states, oblige their signatories.

To be fair, the difference is that UN conventions actually require the signatures of their member governments, and only become binding when those member governments ratify them. Whereas in most federations in real life, federal law becomes binding, instantly, simply by virtue of it being the will of the federal government, period.

As for why the fleet of the Federation is so much based on UESF, my thoughts are these: we know the Federation was established in the immediate aftermath of the Earth-Romulan War. Now, i know it's called the EARTH-Romulan War, but my theory is that it was just started beetwen them. The actual brunt of the fighting in the first years of the war probably fell on Earth's allies - Vulcans, Andorians, Tellarites, seeing how their fleets were vastly stronger than Earth's - leaving their forces decimated. But they bought time for Earth to build up it's fleet which eventually turned the tide of the war. So Earth actually came out of the war with a much stronger fleet than it's allies (something like how the US, which was rather weaker in terms of ships in comparison to a number of states before WW2, came out the strongest). But the new Federation coming out of the war needed a strong force to protect it, so it was probably most logical for the new force to be built around Earth's forces.

That's a fascinating speculation. It would, if nothing else, explain why Federation starships seem to be primarily influenced by Earth designs and why the FS uses the UESF rank structure.

 

[Praetor]

Yes, I like that speculation a lot.

 

[neozeks]

Why, thank you very much

 

[USS Triumphant]

I've long thought there might have been a small near-civil war over this issue of military absorption into Starfleet sometime in the early 23rd century, in which several worlds might have threatened secession, and which might have been what the Axanar Peace Mission mentioned on TOS was all about. Much more interesting than a conflict with the Klingons anyway.

I've long wanted to write about an internal build-up of paranoia against other species resulting in Andor's secession, albeit in the 26th century. But I never seem to find the time, or when I do, the muse won't stay with me...

Why, thank you very much

Yes, excellent. It is, in fact, what I was going to post if I read to the end of this thread and no one else had. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Sci]

I've long thought there might have been a small near-civil war over this issue of military absorption into Starfleet sometime in the early 23rd century, in which several worlds might have threatened secession, and which might have been what the Axanar Peace Mission mentioned on TOS was all about. Much more interesting than a conflict with the Klingons anyway.

I've long wanted to write about an internal build-up of paranoia against other species resulting in Andor's secession, albeit in the 26th century. But I never seem to find the time, or when I do, the muse won't stay with me...

An interesting story. Why the Andorians, though? Of the founding Federation Members, I'd tend to think the Vulcans most likely to secede. They were the most powerful force in local space before the Federation; I can easily see a Vulcan nationalist movement growing that argues that Federation Membership has diminished Vulcan, made it weaker and more vulnerable, and taken away Vulcan's position as the dominant power in local space.

 

[Praetor]

I've long thought there might have been a small near-civil war over this issue of military absorption into Starfleet sometime in the early 23rd century, in which several worlds might have threatened secession, and which might have been what the Axanar Peace Mission mentioned on TOS was all about. Much more interesting than a conflict with the Klingons anyway.

I've long wanted to write about an internal build-up of paranoia against other species resulting in Andor's secession, albeit in the 26th century. But I never seem to find the time, or when I do, the muse won't stay with me...

Y'know, that's funny - I could really see the Andorians be the ones leading the charge in the 23rd. "Why should we have to give up our military? Let the Vulcans dictate what to do, tell us how to defend ourselves? Are you kidding?"

Anyway, I wish you'd write that story.

 

[Sci]

I've long thought there might have been a small near-civil war over this issue of military absorption into Starfleet sometime in the early 23rd century, in which several worlds might have threatened secession, and which might have been what the Axanar Peace Mission mentioned on TOS was all about. Much more interesting than a conflict with the Klingons anyway.

I've long wanted to write about an internal build-up of paranoia against other species resulting in Andor's secession, albeit in the 26th century. But I never seem to find the time, or when I do, the muse won't stay with me...

Y'know, that's funny - I could really see the Andorians be the ones leading the charge in the 23rd. "Why should we have to give up our military? Let the Vulcans dictate what to do, tell us how to defend ourselves? Are you kidding?"

Anyway, I wish you'd write that story.

Just to play Devil's Advocate...

In "Journey to Babel," it is the Tellarites who seem to have some unscrupulous motives, seeking to prevent the entry of Coridan into the Federation so that they can continue to claim it as part of their territory and exploit their dilithium resources without regard for Coridanite sovereignty. I rather think that in the 23rd Century, the Tellarites are more likely to be belligerent than the Andorians. But that's just me.

 

[Praetor]

You do have a point there, Sci. That might be more interesting. And it was the Tellarite ambassador that Sarek was accused of killing after all...

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I picture the Federation more like the EU than the USA.
The member species have a high degree of autonomy - even their own militaries - but Federation law takes priority.
Starfleet is a federal army.

 

[Sci]

I picture the Federation more like the EU than the USA.
The member species have a high degree of autonomy - even their own militaries - but Federation law takes priority.
Starfleet is a federal army.

I think that's been the general consensus -- Federation Member States probably have more autonomy than most member polities of federations today, if only out of necessity (how do you govern that many planets across interstellar space without giving them more autonomy than we tend to find in real life?).

To compare the Federation to the EU as it currently exists, though, seems to me an inaccurate comparison. The European Union's "government," such as it is, is so Byzantine and ineffective as to be laughable. The EU lacks some very crucial legal powers that we know the UFP possesses -- the power to make foreign policy for its member states and the member states' inability to defy EU foreign policy. There's a reason that EU member states like the United Kingdom, Kingdom of Spain, and Italian Republic were able to participate in the invasion and/or military occupation of the Republic of Iraq at the same time that the Federal Republic of Germay and the French Republic opposed the war and tried to stop it -- the EU lacks the sort of foreign policy control and unity possessed by the UFP.

It also seems unlikely to me that the EU would, for instance, be able to declare martial law over the territory of one of its member states without that member state's government's support the way the UFP can.

 

[Anwar]

Concerning why the Federation is so UE dominated and why the resulting military was more an evolution of Earth's own military more than anyone else's...I had my more diabolical idea over that. I began to think that Earth deliberately held back in the Romulan War and allowed it's allies to be devestated in the conflict (greatly weakening the Romulans as well) and only stepped in when both the allies and Romulans had pretty much wasted each other. Earth made the agreement that in exchange for them defeating the Romulans it would be Earth as the dominant power of the new alliance that would have to be formed from the remains of the allies power (since alone too much of their individual infrastructure had been destroyed and they'd have to work together more closely). Then after they beat the Romulans Earth essentially whitewashed the history books to make it the "Earth-Romulan War" and downplayed the allies' involvement.

So from this, the TOS Federation was really a benevolent Terran Empire with the other aliens as weak partners.