Tag Archive for territorial integrity

Reflections on the Israel-Hamas Conflict in Gaza and Stray Voltage on Genocide, Proportionality, Apartheid, Collective Punishment, and the Impact of the (Demise of) the Right of Conquest  

Disclaimer: The posts, views and opinions expressed on this site are completely my own and do not represent the views or opinions of my employer, the Department of Defense (DoD), the Armed Services, nor any part of the Defense Industrial Base.

It has been a long time since I posted anything to Kapok Tree. But there is just so much going on in the world with the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the Israel-Hamas conflict, rising antisemitism, flagrant violations of international law, rising national debt, etc.  I thought this might be a good time to lay a couple things on the table that might get us thinking.  I do want to talk about the conflict in Gaza and clarify a couple things on proportionality, apartheid, collective punishment and genocide, as well as do something unique by looking at the right of conquest, but I’m not going to get into an analysis of U.S. policy or what the U.S. should or shouldn’t do.  I will aim to keep my discussion confined to the topic of international law.  Let’s get into it.

The Permanence of Warfare (well, until Jesus comes back) 

What is happening with Israel and Hamas is really nothing new considering biblical truth.  Warfare and violent conflict have always been a sign of spiritual failure. 

James 4:1-3 says: 

“Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? 2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures” (Bible Gateway, NKJV, 1982).  Jesus added, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52, NKJV).  This principle of ‘violence begetting violence’ applies even if the cause is just.  There’s no way around it. 

Moreover, there is no justification in international law or the Bible for an indiscriminate use of violence to deal with injustice, no matter how bad the injustice.  Warfare is not a tool to be taken lightly and used for dubious reasons when other methods of conflict resolution might prove successful.  It is important to note that God wants man to live in peace. “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:19, NKJV).   Jesus said to, “Love your enemies, and bless those who curse you” (Mt. 5:44, NIV).  It’s good to be a peacemaker. 

Having said all of that, warfare is not going away, at least not anytime soon.  Both the Council on Foreign Relations and Crisis Watch put out Global Conflict Trackers.  The CFR map reveals numerous conflicts ongoing in Africa and the Middle East, not to mention that a genuine threat of genocide exists in the Sudan, Myanmar/Burma, Darfur and Nigeria.  Genocide, though, is one of those words that get tossed around and applied to all sorts of conflicts without much thought to the actual definition, often depriving genocide of its true meaning and impact thereof.   

What is Genocide? 

According to Article 2 of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the term is defined as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  

  • killing members of the group;  
  • causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  
  • deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;  
  • imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group 
  • {and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group 

Based upon that strict definition, I do Not believe that genocide is occurring in Gaza, or in Ukraine, or to Native American Indians in the 1800’s for that matter, where disease claimed 75-90% of the dead.  I should add that motives are an integral part of proving genocidal intent, and that the convention fails to address what percentage of a group must be impacted to qualify as genocide. Genuine examples of genocide include (but are not limited to) the Holocaust and genocides in Armenia (1915-1917), Rwanda (1994), and Cambodia (1975-1979).   In the international laws of armed conflict (LOAC), Intent and Context are everything. 

Read more

China’s Assertion of Sovereign Authority in the Global Commons and the Escalation of Legal Warfare in the Arctic

“China’s Assertion of Sovereign Authority in the Global Commons and the Escalation of Legal Warfare in the Arctic” by Jeff Dwiggins

© Kapok Tree Diplomacy. June 2013. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins.   PREVIEW

“After the Northwest Passage is opened up …  the sea route between Europe, Asia, and North America will be shortened by 5,200 to 7,000 nautical miles. Whoever controls the Arctic sea route will control the world economy and a new internationally strategic corridor.”[1]  Li Zhenfu

Topic

Competition among Arctic states is heating up over access to the Arctic’s undiscovered but potentially vast deposits of oil, natural gas and rare earth minerals.[2]  Moreover, the diminishing thickness and range of sea ice that could eventually make the Northern Sea Route significantly more accessible for cheaper and faster transoceanic shipping has also attracted the geopolitical interest of several non-Arctic states, most notably China.[3] The undeveloped resources are located almost exclusively in the legal territorial waters of Arctic states like Russia, Denmark, the United States and Canada.[4] These states have already made credible territorial claims to the United Nations and are prepared to protect their interests militarily if necessary.[5] So how will China assert its rights and interests in the Arctic without getting into a military conflict?

This essay will examine how China will redefine the Clausewitzian battlefield and utilize legal warfare (sometimes called lawfare) as an “offensive weapon” to “seize the political initiative” and shape international public opinion about the Arctic and sovereign territorial claims through non-military means, negotiations, diplomacy and international law to project power and accomplish its core national strategic objectives.[6]   It will examine China’s use of legal warfare as a preferred strategy for addressing critical challenges to China’s assertion of rights and interests in the Arctic, including the competing sovereignty and territorial claims by Arctic states and the risks, costs and uncertainty of harvesting the resources themselves.[7] Read more

Engaging the Dragon Through Peaceful Deterrence: Japan’s Need to Recalibrate Its Strategy of Accommodation with China

“Engaging the Dragon Through Peaceful Deterrence: Japan’s Need to Recalibrate Its Strategy of Accommodation with China” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

© Kapok Tree Diplomacy. Oct 2012. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins. 

PREVIEW

Theoretical Framework

The grand strategies and values of Japan and China will be evaluated from a “Balance of Threat” and “Defensive Realism” theoretical framework.  This essay posits that given China’s rise and Japan’s moment of opportunity to counter, it is important to gauge the feasibility of a values-based concert of democracies within this theoretical framework. Stephen Walt argues that states tend to balance or bandwagon with a rising power depending on their assessment of the perceived threat.[1] Japan’s past, present and future behavior towards China is thus assessed within the parameters of defensive realism which point to Japanese formation of strategic alliances to deal with the anarchy and security dilemma that characterize the international system and create uncertainty of intentions and inadvertent mistrust and conflict.[2] Read more

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

“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