<?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>crime of aggression &#8211; Kapok Tree Diplomacy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/tag/crime-of-aggression/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>Fri, 10 Nov 2023 19:40:47 +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>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>The Last Word on Justice: The Impact of the International Criminal Court On the Future of International Justice and its Rocky Road to Legitimacy</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/the-last-word-on-justice-the-impact-of-the-international-criminal-court-on-the-future-of-international-justice-and-its-rocky-road-to-legitimacy/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/the-last-word-on-justice-the-impact-of-the-international-criminal-court-on-the-future-of-international-justice-and-its-rocky-road-to-legitimacy/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:03:24 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intl Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paid Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[act of aggression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[automatic jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bilateral Article 98 agreeements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[checks and balances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crime of aggression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David J. Scheffer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[delayed justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[delegated jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DROC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[due process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[erga omnes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flaws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICC jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICC Review Conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICTY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impartiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Center for Transitional Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Criminal Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jus ad bellum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jus cogens norms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kampala]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kenneth Anderson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laws of war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Luis Moreno-Ocampo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NATO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nonparty states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuremberg Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[P5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace vs. justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post hoc justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proprio motu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prosecuting the Crime of Aggression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reciprocity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rome Statute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self-help]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tadic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[territorial jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Hague]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thomas Lubanga Dyilo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Security Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[universal jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unwilling or unable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Versailles Treaty]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=244</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[“The world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law.” Dwight D. Eisenhower (qtd. in Ferencz 288)

Introduction

The remarkable ascent of international criminal law over the past two decades has had, and continues to have, a profound impact on the laws of war, humanitarian and human rights laws, and existing international institutions like the United Nations (UN).  The global community took a giant step towards holding the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes accountable to the rule of law by adopting the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court on July 17, 1998. 

Bringing the violators of these serious crimes to justice, however, has proven to be easier said than done. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has encountered numerous practical and conceptual obstacles in its efforts to become an impartial and effective instrument of justice.  Some commentators like Brett Schafer and Steven Groves believe the ICC is so deeply flawed that it even violates international law in addition to threatening state sovereignty (1). 

The paper seeks to review the history, structure and effectiveness of the ICC, including its recent agreement on a definition for the Crime of Aggression. I will specifically examine practical objections to the ICC, its conceptual challenges, its evolving role in matters of peace and justice, and how it is challenging the traditional role of the UN Security Council (UNSC).   

The ICC’s jurisdictional reach will be examined in detail as well as its procedural safeguards. Finally, I’ll review some ways the United States can effectively cooperate with the ICC as a non-party partner while simultaneously advancing its foreign policy and national security interests and resisting the trend in international law towards pooled sovereignty and global governance. 

The views and opinions expressed in this paper 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.]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/the-last-word-on-justice-the-impact-of-the-international-criminal-court-on-the-future-of-international-justice-and-its-rocky-road-to-legitimacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">244</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
