<?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>Israel &#8211; Kapok Tree Diplomacy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/tag/israel/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>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>
		<item>
		<title>Can Samuel P. Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ model explain trends in foreign affairs after the 9-11 attack?</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/can-samuel-p-huntingtons-clash-of-civilizations-model-explain-trends-in-foreign-affairs-after-the-9-11-attack/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/can-samuel-p-huntingtons-clash-of-civilizations-model-explain-trends-in-foreign-affairs-after-the-9-11-attack/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:45:13 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Post Conflict Reconstruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al-Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clash of Civilizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic reforms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[globalization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[good governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interstate conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invasion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kurds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace building]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poverty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[preemptive strike]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prevention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious ideology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shiite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Turks]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=341</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The conduct of international relations post 9-11 has certainly been dramatically shaped by the US. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, in the former as a pre-emptive attack to remove WMD and the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein, and in the latter to hunt down al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and eliminate the training bases that harbored these non-state actors. In both cases, massive reconstruction projects have been undertaken to prevent Iraq and Afghanistan from becoming failed states and help them adopt political and economic reforms of a Western orientation.

But these U.S. interventions are not the only factor explaining the conduct of IR after 9-11. Paul Diehl notes that the demand for peace operations and subsequent escalation in third party interventions rose dramatically following the Cold War due to “superpower retrenchment in providing aid to other states,” an explosion of failed states and civil wars that spawned out of the power vacuum, an increased advocacy for democracy and free markets, greater international concern for human rights, and globalization (52-55).]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/can-samuel-p-huntingtons-clash-of-civilizations-model-explain-trends-in-foreign-affairs-after-the-9-11-attack/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">341</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are Confidence Building Measures Effective in the Middle East?</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/are-confidence-building-measures-effective-in-the-middle-east/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/are-confidence-building-measures-effective-in-the-middle-east/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:16:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prevent/Contain Intl. Conflicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CBMs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidence-building measures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diehl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incrementalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israeli settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestinian refugees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace building]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right of return]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[step-by-step appraoch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimson Center]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sustainable peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trust building]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West Bank]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=299</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Diehl lays out five dimensions of peace building which are applicable to the situation in the sense that CBM’s can be a significant component of peace building activities.  Diehl’s dimensions are (1) the goal; (2) the strategy and activities; (3) the timing; (4) the context; and (5) the actors who will bring it about (8-11).]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/are-confidence-building-measures-effective-in-the-middle-east/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">299</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Zero Problems &#8211; Enhancing Security and Preventing Conflict in Turkey’s Evolving Partnerships with the European Union, United States, Middle East, Russia and Eurasia</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/zero-problems-enhancing-security-and-preventing-conflict-in-turkeys-evolving-partnerships-with-the-european-union-united-states-middle-east-russia-and-eurasia/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/zero-problems-enhancing-security-and-preventing-conflict-in-turkeys-evolving-partnerships-with-the-european-union-united-states-middle-east-russia-and-eurasia/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:55:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paid Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prevent/Contain Intl. Conflicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ahmet Davutoğlu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AKP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ankara Protocol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Annan Plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Armenia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Armenian-Turkish relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Azerbaijan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Balkans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blue Stream II pipeline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cagaptay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Caucasus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Security and Defense Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterbalancing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CSDP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cyprus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Davutoglu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EMFTA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Erdogan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU accession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU Customs Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU subsidies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Commission on Enlargement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Defense Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europeanization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genocide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greece]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greek Cypriots]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[honest broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[influence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice and Development Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kurdistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kurdistan Workers Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kurds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mass deportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mavi Marmara flotilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minsk Group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mustafa Kemal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nabucco pipeline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nagorno-Karabakh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NATO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSCE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ottoman Empire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partnership for Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peaceful coexistence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PKK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[preferred partnership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prime Minister Erdogan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pro-Western]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reconciliation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rhythmic diplomacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samsun-Ceyhan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soft power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategic security partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sudan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Turkey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Turkish Cypriots]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two-faced]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Economic Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zero problems]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=290</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Turkey’s security partnerships with Europe, NATO and the United States have played an important role in its foreign policy decisions since the 1950’s as a counter to Russia during the Cold War (CountryWatch, “Political History”). Founded on the principles of “secularism, strong nationalism, statism, and to a degree, western orientation” by Mustafa Kemal after the collapse of the 600-year old Ottoman Empire (U.S. State Dept., Background Note), Turkey is uniquely positioned at the crossroads and nexus of “four areas of growing strategic importance in the post-Cold War era” (Larrabee 3): the Balkans and Europe, the Middle East and Persian Gulf region, and the Caucasus/Central Asia region. 
 
With the end of the Cold War and the onset of two Persian Gulf Wars, Turkey’s interests and strategic alliances began to markedly shift their trajectories (Larrabee 6-9). This paper will explore Turkey's recent modifications of its strategic security partnerships from the perspectives of key states within each of its regional spheres of influence in a context of conflict prevention. Section One will review the Balkans and European perspective; in Section Two the Middle East; Eurasia and the Caucasus in Section Three with a special slant on Russia; and in Section Four the United States. Section Five will review Turkey’s internal domestic issues to include the Kurdish challenge, political trends, global aspirations and some interesting comparisons with China. The paper will conclude with Section Six and some recommended conflict prevention strategies to counterbalance Turkey’s various threats. 

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/zero-problems-enhancing-security-and-preventing-conflict-in-turkeys-evolving-partnerships-with-the-european-union-united-states-middle-east-russia-and-eurasia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">290</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>
