<?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>ICC &#8211; Kapok Tree Diplomacy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/tag/icc/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=6.4.4</generator>
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">44605809</site>	<item>
		<title>Strengths and Weaknesses of Truth Commissions vs. Amnesty Laws as States Recover from the Atrocities of War</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-truth-commissions-vs-amnesty-laws-as-states-recover-from-the-atrocities-of-war/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-truth-commissions-vs-amnesty-laws-as-states-recover-from-the-atrocities-of-war/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:02:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prevent/Contain Intl. Conflicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amnesty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bosnia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forgiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hayner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hybrid commissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Criminal Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiated peace settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NGOs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[punishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reconciliation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retributive justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revenge killings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truth commissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=348</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Truth Commissions (TCs) – TCs may be appointed or sponsored by national, international, NGO, or hybrid commissions (Bercovitch &#038; Jackson 156). The strengths of truth commissions may include their low cost, flexibility, “wide range of purposes” that they serve, ability to “reconstitute the moral order and provide a measure of justice when trials are not an option,” usefulness in dealing with “disappearances and killings by anonymous death squads,” potential to end a culture of impunity, role in providing a new transitional government “room to maneuver,” and the “emotional therapy” they provide a “traumatized society” (Bercovitch &#038; Jackson 159). But are TCs ‘compromise justice’ that actually weaken the ability to make peace?

Hayner’s analysis of 15 recent TCs is useful for delineating their strengths and weaknesses. Hayner notes that in Uganda (1974) the TC had “little impact on the practices of the Amin regime” (612); in Bolivia many abuses “were overlooked” (614); the Uruguay TC was “not a serious undertaking of human rights” (616); the Zimbabwe report “has never been available to the public” (617); the Chilean report resulted in a formal apology by the President and many recommendations being implemented (622). Furthermore, the Chad TC may have been established “to improve the new president’s image” and suffered from lack of funds (624-625); the El Salvador TC resulted in general amnesty only five days after publication of its report (629); and the South African ANC II report denied any “systematic policy of abuse” (633).]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-truth-commissions-vs-amnesty-laws-as-states-recover-from-the-atrocities-of-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">348</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>
		<item>
		<title>Challenges to Keeping the Peace in International Law</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/challenges-to-keeping-the-peace-in-international-law/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/challenges-to-keeping-the-peace-in-international-law/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 21:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intl Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CTBT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Darfur]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geneva Conventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human dignity violations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Court of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Criminal Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international tribunals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice vs. peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keep the peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kosovo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new START]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nicaragua v. United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noncompliance Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear proliferation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rwanda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Convention on the Law of the Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Security Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weapons of mass destruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WMD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Trade Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yugoslavia]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=238</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Introduction

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.]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/challenges-to-keeping-the-peace-in-international-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">238</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
