Tag Archive for Kosovo

Why the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine Is Incompatible with the Principles of National Sovereignty and Domestic Jurisdiction Found in International Law

February 19, 2013 Christian Perspective, Human Rights & Conflict, International Relations, Paid Content No comments

“Why the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine is Incompatible with the Legal Principles of National Sovereignty and Domestic Jurisdiction” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

(C) Kapok Tree Diplomacy. April 2011. All rights reserved.  PREVIEW

Section One – Origins and Core Principles of R2P

Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) (2001)

State sovereignty has been defined as, “the rightful entitlement to exclusive, unqualified, and supreme rule within a delimited territory” (Smith, Baylis & Owens 25). But when, where and how may that legitimate and authoritative ‘rightful entitlement’ be challenged? UNSG Annan noted in a 1999 Press Release (SG/SM/7136, GA 9596), “State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalization and international cooperation” (qtd. in Dunoff, Ratner & Wippman 954). It is against this backdrop of rapidly changing international legal perspectives on state sovereignty that the ICISS makes its case. Read more

NATO’s Role and Relevance in Post-Conflict Reconstruction And Challenges in Implementing the Comprehensive Approach

February 18, 2013 International Relations, Paid Content, Prevent/Contain Intl. Conflicts No comments

“NATO’s Role and Relevance in Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Challenges in Implementing the Comprehensive Approach” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

PREVIEW  to follow. Includes a Table of Contents. Complete essay is 5,821 words, 22 pages double-spaced, 60 references

Section One – NATO – Brief History and Background

Pre Cold War.  Hoehn and Harting note that increasing tensions with the Soviet Union over its Berlin Blockade (1948), China’s “short-lived embrace of Moscow” (5), and Communist incursions in Czechoslovakia and Korea led the United States, Canada and ten other Western European states to form NATO as a defensive alliance and formulate a policy of Soviet “containment” designed to “keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down” in April of 1949 (8). Despite occasional disagreements over burden-sharing and a dust-up with France, alliance members “deterred the Soviets, and integrated Germany into a collective defense system for the West” over the next 40 years (Duignan 43), moving from a posture of deterrence to détente in a manner consistent with its values of “democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law” (NATO “Treaty”).

Post Cold War. NATO’s success with facilitating European integration and deterring the Soviet threat was rewarded with the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union in 1991 (Medcalf 196-197), as NATO “found itself without an enemy” for the first time in its history, earning a “bloodless victory … without firing a shot” (Duignan 46, 48). The collapse of the Soviet Union encouraged NATO to enlarge its membership into Eastern Europe (1999) and launch the Partnership for Peace (PfP) for military cooperation and dialogue with non-NATO states (1994) despite lingering doubts regarding NATO’s post-Cold War purpose and identity (Duignan 58). Read more

Challenges Facing Outside Actors in Balancing Punitive and Reconciliatory Measures in Nation/State-Building and the Optimum Division of Labor to Overcome Them

February 17, 2013 International Relations, Paid Content, Post Conflict Reconstruction No comments

“Challenges Facing Outside Actors in Balancing Punitive and Reconciliatory Measures in Nation/State-Building and the Optimum Division of Labor to Overcome Them” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

PREVIEW

I.    Punitive and Reconciliatory Measures Available in Nation/State-Building

A.    Definitions

B.     Tasks of Nation/State Building (NSB)

C.     Punitive and Reconciliatory Measures Available in NSB Processes

1.     Military Security

2.     Political

3.     Economic

4.     Justice and Reconciliation

II.    Challenges Facing Outside Actors in Nation/State Building

A.    Military/Security Pillar – Challenges Facing IOs, Coalitions and MNFs, and  States

B.    Political and Governance Pillar – Challenges Facing IOs, Coalitions and MNFs, and States

C.    Economic Pillar – Challenges Facing IOs, Coalitions and MNFs, and States

D.    Justice and Reconciliation Pillar – Challenges Facing IOs, Coalitions and MNFs, and States

III.    Section Three – Optimum Division of Labor to Meet NSB Challenges

A.    Proper Mix – International, Regional, Local, Multilateral & Bilateral

B.    Military/Economic/Political Division of Labor

IV.    Summary

Section One – Punitive and Reconciliatory Measures Available in Nation/State-Building

Definitions.  Nation-building and state-building are similar but not identical concepts with context often determining which term is applicable. Mary Thida Lun defines nation-building as “the indigenous and domestic creation and reinforcement of the complex social and cultural identities that relate to and define citizenship within the territory of the state” (v).   Read more

Challenges to Keeping the Peace in International Law

February 10, 2013 Free Content, International Relations, Intl Law No comments

(C) Kapok Tree Diplomacy. August 2010. All rights reserved. By Jeff DwigginsInternational-Law flags

Introduction – FREE CONTENT

The need for a “fundamental institutional arrangement not only to address questions of war and peace and human rights but to develop legal norms in other areas, such as labor, health, and communications,” has enticed the vast majority of states to consent at some level to a growing and complex body of rules and norms designed to serve state interests by securing and furthering a peaceful, prosperous and stable society (Dunoff et. al. 16). Today these norms permeate the mission and operations of numerous international institutions like the United Nations, providing peaceful dispute resolution tools in such diverse areas as trade, military operations and human rights.

While most states desire to live in peace with one another and follow the fundamental norms of international law, a few states and some increasingly dangerous non-state actors like Al- Qaeda prefer to do whatever they want. In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, U.S. President Barack Obama added, “[the] old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats … wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos” (Obama 51).

This paper will examine what it means to “keep the peace” in an era of the globalization of world politics and unprecedented challenges and threats. The specific challenges to be addressed include nuclear proliferation, military conflict and terrorism, international trade and economic relations, diminishing natural resources, and humanitarian and human dignity issues. The paper will also examine whether existing international institutions and legal doctrines are likely to resolve the issue, and where are they likely to fall short?

The posts, views and opinions expressed in this post are completely my own and do not represent the views or opinions of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of the Navy (DON) or any of the Armed Forces.

Section One – Nuclear Proliferation

Nuclear weapons are able to do far more than disable enemy combatants. They can destroy entire cities and obliterate entire human populations with one powerful blast.  The international community has developed two important treaties, The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), to limit proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), encourage disarmament, and preserve peaceful usage of nuclear energy (Dunoff et. al. 532-533).  Although these treaties have substantial ratifications, their effectiveness is severely limited by holdouts and compliance issues.   Read more