<?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>drones &#8211; Kapok Tree Diplomacy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/tag/drones/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>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>How well do the thoughts and intentions of the Framers of the Constitution on responsibility for national security still hold up today?</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/how-well-do-the-thoughts-and-intentions-of-the-framers-of-the-constitution-on-responsibility-for-national-security-still-hold-up-today/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/how-well-do-the-thoughts-and-intentions-of-the-framers-of-the-constitution-on-responsibility-for-national-security-still-hold-up-today/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advice and consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article II]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AUMF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barenblatt v. United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[due process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive Clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executive power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federalist Paper No. 64]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[founders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourteenth Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourth Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule of law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search and seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Convention on the Law of the Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unreasonable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Powers Acts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yemen]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=421</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Framers for their part did have a lot to say about the delineation of powers in these areas. The Constitution is a good place to start in determining how those powers are enumerated and what limits if any apply to them. 

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says: 

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Passed 12/15/1791).

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says:

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Passed 7/9/1868) 

These amendments lay out the case for citizens’ right to privacy and limits on government instrusion in this matter without spelling out what constitutes “unreasonable.”]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/how-well-do-the-thoughts-and-intentions-of-the-framers-of-the-constitution-on-responsibility-for-national-security-still-hold-up-today/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">421</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>
