<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Human Rights &amp; Conflict &#8211; Kapok Tree Diplomacy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/category/international-relations/human-rights-and-conflict/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress</link>
	<description>Exploring the conduct of international relations and the ideals of democracy &#38; individual liberty in the context of the Christian worldview.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Nov 2023 20:34:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3</generator>
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">44605809</site>	<item>
		<title>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  </title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/reflections-on-the-israel-hamas-conflict-in-gaza-and-stray-voltage-on-genocide-proportionality-apartheid-legality-of-settlements-and-the-demise-of-the-right-of-conquest/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/reflections-on-the-israel-hamas-conflict-in-gaza-and-stray-voltage-on-genocide-proportionality-apartheid-legality-of-settlements-and-the-demise-of-the-right-of-conquest/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2023 07:10:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Human Rights & Conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intl Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prevent/Contain Intl. Conflicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apartheid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collective punishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gaza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genocide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human shields]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jewish settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mowing the grass]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open air prison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestinian Authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Principle of proportionality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right of Conquest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self determination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self-defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ten-dash line]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[territorial integrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[warfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West Bank]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=909</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[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),]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/reflections-on-the-israel-hamas-conflict-in-gaza-and-stray-voltage-on-genocide-proportionality-apartheid-legality-of-settlements-and-the-demise-of-the-right-of-conquest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">909</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Domestic Proliferation of Drones and their Challenges to American Democratic Values, Civil Liberties, Local Law Enforcement and National Security</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/532/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/532/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 00:37:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Global Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights & Conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intl Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paid Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Natl. Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aerial surveillance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AeroVironment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[border surveillance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brennan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California v. Ciraolo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Certificates of Authorizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[checks and balances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[COAs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DHS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone strikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone surveillance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone wars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[due process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethical decision making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extra-judicial killings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FBI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Aviation Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mexico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military capabilities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[miniature UAV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Predator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remotely piloted aircraft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule of law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secure Border Initiative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ShadowHawk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Super Bowl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surgical strikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surveillance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Switchblade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Customs and Border Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAVs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unlawful surveillance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unmanned aerial vehicles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unreasonable search and seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wasp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yemen]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=532</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In order to deter and defeat the increasingly violent and dangerous threats that challenge our borders, national security strategists must employ a flexible, forceful and effective array of intelligence gathering and counterterrorism tools that enable America’s defenders to guarantee the safety and security of the nation.  Domestic unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and drones are increasingly important for patrolling the 1,951 mile border between the U.S. and Mexico as well as for domestic law enforcement and homeland security purposes.  But are domestic drones threatening to violate many of America’s civil liberties and privacy rights while circumventing proper oversight, institutional checks and balances, and the rule of law?

Purpose Statement and Hypothesis

The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine the proliferation of domestic UAVs and their current and future law enforcement applications in context to America’s constitutional values and the increasingly blurred line between civilian and military roles in homeland security. The central hypothesis is that UAV technology is rapidly undermining the ethical framework within the national and homeland security decision-making process  while putting the nation’s civil liberties at risk and opening the door for a significant security and ethical disaster.  ]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/532/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">532</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blind Man’s Bluff: Kazakhstan’s Mirage of Compliance with International Obligations to Uphold the Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly and Association</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/blind-mans-bluff-kazakhstans-mirage-of-compliance-with-international-obligations-to-uphold-the-freedom-of-expression-and-freedom-of-assembly-and-association/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/blind-mans-bluff-kazakhstans-mirage-of-compliance-with-international-obligations-to-uphold-the-freedom-of-expression-and-freedom-of-assembly-and-association/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:00:55 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Human Rights & Conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paid Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adil Soz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ar.Rukh.Khak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arrests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Astana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Azat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Committee to Protect Journalists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copenhagen Document]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[derogated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dignity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ESC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedo House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of assembly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of expression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of information law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[good faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Helsinki Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[honor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICCPR General Comment No. 34]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal assemblies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ILO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Labor Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kazakh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kazakhstan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KIBHRRL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Mass Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Human Rights Action Plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nazarayev]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NGOs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nur Otan party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obligations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[observer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ODIHR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSCE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSCE Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pacta sunt servanda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[participant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peaceful assembly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[permission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political pluralism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Nursultan Nazarbayev]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ramazan Yesergepov]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reporters Without Borders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Representative on Freedom of the Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Respublika]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule of law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Siracusa Principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spontaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[think tanks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDHR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Economic and Social Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN treaties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Universal Periodic Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unregistered organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vienna Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yevgeniy Zhovtis]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=396</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Leveraging billions of dollars of oil, gas and mineral reserves while avoiding major inter-ethnic conflict, Kazakhstan has become the most powerful and prosperous of all Central Asian states under the savvy and astute leadership of President Nursultan Nazarbayev and the first to chair the prestigious 56-member Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 2010 (Dave, 250). Despite Kazakhstan’s impressive political and economic trajectory, the state has failed to consistently recognize and secure many important civil and political rights for its citizens that are enshrined in international human rights treaties.  

The rights to the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association may be considered cornerstones of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the OSCE Copenhagen Document, and the OSCE Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly which help to guarantee and safeguard democracy, common societal interests, and the rule of law (Kz-OSCE 4). The two rights are complementary with a violation of one often violating the other. This essay seeks to answer the following question: To what extent do Kazakhstan’s excessive restrictions on the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association fail to meet its obligations undertaken in accordance with the ICCPR, the OSCE Copenhagen Document, and OSCE Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly? This essay will limit its coverage to the 2007 – 2011 timeframe. ]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/blind-mans-bluff-kazakhstans-mirage-of-compliance-with-international-obligations-to-uphold-the-freedom-of-expression-and-freedom-of-assembly-and-association/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">396</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine Is Incompatible with the Principles of National Sovereignty and Domestic Jurisdiction Found in International Law</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/why-the-responsibility-to-protect-r2p-doctrine-is-incompatible-with-the-principles-of-national-sovereignty-and-domestic-jurisdiction-found-in-international-law/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/why-the-responsibility-to-protect-r2p-doctrine-is-incompatible-with-the-principles-of-national-sovereignty-and-domestic-jurisdiction-found-in-international-law/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:23:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Christian Perspective]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights & Conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paid Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 2(4)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customary norm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Darfur]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[erga omnes obligations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failed states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fragile states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gareth Evans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[humanitarian catastrophes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[humanitarian intervention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICISS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[INGOs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international non-governmental associations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jus cogens norms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[just cause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kofi Annan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kosovo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[last resort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libya]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mass atrocities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military intervention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obligation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political independence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proportional means]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R2P]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable prospects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Responsibility to Protect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right intention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rwanda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[serious harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sudan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[territorial integrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDHR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Charter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN General Assembly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Security Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UNSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unwilling or unable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Federalist Movement]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=390</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In the aftermath of unresponsive and slow reactions by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to serious humanitarian catastrophes in Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia, the British Foreign Office and a Canadian independent commission submitted proposals to UN Secretary General (UNSG) Kofi Annan, in 1999 and 2001 respectively, arguing for a limited right of military and humanitarian intervention under certain conditions to protect civilians from mass atrocities (Byers 104). Over the past ten years, an emerging norm and set of principles known as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has surfaced based upon the idea that “sovereignty is not a prerogative but a responsibility” (Axworthy qtd. in Byers 106).
   
But is R2P intervention legal? Does it violate national sovereignty and domestic jurisdiction? Does it lead to selective authorizations for intervention by the UNSC? Could it lead to inappropriate and unnecessary humanitarian interventions that do more harm than good? This research paper seeks to answer the above questions in the affirmative and establish the principle that R2P is illegal based on the basic principles of national sovereignty and domestic jurisdiction found in international law. ]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/why-the-responsibility-to-protect-r2p-doctrine-is-incompatible-with-the-principles-of-national-sovereignty-and-domestic-jurisdiction-found-in-international-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">390</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Were the rulings of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) more dependent upon customary or statutory international law?</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/were-the-rulings-of-the-international-military-tribunal-imt-more-dependent-upon-customary-or-statutory-international-law/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/were-the-rulings-of-the-international-military-tribunal-imt-more-dependent-upon-customary-or-statutory-international-law/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:53:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights & Conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Allied Powers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aquinas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[binding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crime of aggression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crimes against humanity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crimes Against Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customary international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geneva Conventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hague Conventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hugo Grotius]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Criminal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Military Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jus ad bellum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jus cogens peremptory norms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jus in bello]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[just war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kellogg-Briand Pact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martens Clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nulla poena sine lege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nullum crimen sine lege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obligation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinio juris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perpetrators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Charter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[verdict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Crimes]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=386</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Customary international law (IL) derives from a “combination of ‘state practice’ and opinio juris, the belief that a certain type of conduct under IL is an obligation (Byers 4).  According to Byers, new rules require “widespread support” before they become part of customary IL (4). Cerone adds that the Martens Clause of the Hague Conventions binds “belligerents to remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations” until such time as custom becomes statutory in some form or fashion (qtd. in Mertus &#038; Helsing 219-220). Thus, custom serves as a “gap-filling” measure that universally binds all states and may apply to scenarios where IL has not yet been formalized into statutes (Mertus &#038; Helsing 220). ]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/were-the-rulings-of-the-international-military-tribunal-imt-more-dependent-upon-customary-or-statutory-international-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">386</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>International and Regional Mechanisms for Holding Human Rights Offenders Accountable</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/international-and-regional-mechanisms-for-holding-human-rights-offenders-accountable/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/international-and-regional-mechanisms-for-holding-human-rights-offenders-accountable/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:40:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Human Rights & Conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paid Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1235 procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1503 procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amnesty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[armed conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CEDAW]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[charter-based]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commission on the Status of Women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ECHR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Court of Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extra-territorial jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fact finding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[female genital mutilation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Comments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genocide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hybrid justice mechanisms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IACHR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IACtHR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICCPR Human Rights Committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICTR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICTY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inter-American Commission on Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inter-American Court of Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Court of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international humanitarian law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kofi Annan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[margin of appreciation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[norms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nulla poena sine lege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nullum crimen sine lege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OAS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organization of American States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post-conflict reconstruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regional institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule of law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rwanda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[special procedures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Rapporteurs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steiner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treaty-based]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truth commissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN General Assembly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Security Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victor’s justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=368</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[United Nations charter-based and treaty-based bodies and regional human rights, commissions, courts and councils carry the responsibility for holding both states and individuals accountable for human rights violations. The efficacy of enforcement mechanisms, or lack thereof, and the reluctance of states to part with sovereignty often serve as obstacles to the realization of effective accountability. This essay will examine the different options for holding individuals and states accountable, the processes for obtaining justice, and the remedies, sanctions and enforcement mechanisms that may result. 

The essay will explore the effectiveness, strengths and weaknesses of the processes and punishments of the UN Charter and treaty-based bodies and regional institutions. The essay will conclude that the determination of which institution is more effective depends on a variety of factors to include the nature of the violation, the type of entity being held accountable – state or individual, the political will of the states involved, the jurisdiction and enforcement options available, the sufficiency and maturity of the regional, legal infrastructure, regional perceptions of impartiality and legitimacy, and the financial and legal resources at the disposal of the judicial institution. 
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/international-and-regional-mechanisms-for-holding-human-rights-offenders-accountable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">368</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Key Differences between First and Second Generation Human Rights</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/the-critical-differences-between-first-and-second-generation-human-rights/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/the-critical-differences-between-first-and-second-generation-human-rights/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:39:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Human Rights & Conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paid Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a priori]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aspirational]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brazil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coercion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collective good]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Convention Against Torture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enlightenment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entitlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Court of Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom from torture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government of South Africa vs. Grootboom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICCPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICESCR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inalienable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intensity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intentional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inter-American Court of Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Bill of Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Covenant on Economic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jus cogens peremptory norms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justiciability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Landau Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lex ferenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberty rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maastricht Guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negative rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[positive rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[punishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to work]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights to goods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights vs. resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[severe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social and Cultural Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[socio-economic rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Rapporteurs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treaties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN General Assembly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UNDHR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Universal Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vienna Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waterboarding]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=361</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The recognition of individual human rights under international law took on a “formal and authoritative expression” following the end of World War II when the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 (Steiner, Alston &#038; Goodman (SAG) 134). The UNDHR was designed to “take the form of a declaration – that is, a recommendation by the General Assembly to Member States that would exert a moral and political influence on states rather than constitute a legally binding document” (SAG 135). 

	Following approval of the UDHR, the UN Commission, General Assembly and Third Committee began work on a more “detailed and comprehensive” expression of human rights that emerged in the form of “two principal treaties – The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)” which were both approved in 1966 and both entered into force in 1976 through the required number of ratifications (SAG 136). The ICCPR and ICESCR were designed to be more legally binding than the UDHR. Collectively, these three documents are often referred to as the ‘International Bill of Human Rights’ (SAG 133). 
	
While the ICCPR and ICESCR are said by the Vienna Conference (1993) to be “universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated” (263), there is not universal agreement that the two sets of rights are in fact universal or that they are of equal political and moral weight. The complete set of rights was split into two documents for a reason. With the advent of the Cold War, ideological differences began to emerge over commitments to “first generation” civil and political rights (CPRs) and “second generation” economic and social rights (ESRs) (SAG 136). This bifurcation of rights is often challenged by many as an unfair hierarchical categorization, while others may point to CPRs as being an attempt at Western “ideological imperialism” (SAG 140-141). 

This essay will explore the critical differences between the two documents as well as some similarities. Moreover, the essay will examine the content, application and enforcement characteristics of each document, challenges to enforcement, the nature of each set of rights and their critical differences, and conclude with the assertion that CPRs are more important. 
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/the-critical-differences-between-first-and-second-generation-human-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">361</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
