<?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>peace &#8211; Kapok Tree Diplomacy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/tag/peace/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 16:25:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.1</generator>
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">44605809</site>	<item>
		<title>Crafting a National Security Grand Strategy and Navigating Its Effective Integration as a Policy Across the Whole of Government</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/crafting-a-national-security-grand-strategy-and-navigating-its-effective-integration-as-a-policy-across-the-whole-of-government/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/crafting-a-national-security-grand-strategy-and-navigating-its-effective-integration-as-a-policy-across-the-whole-of-government/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:07:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Natl. Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[borders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil-military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congressional Budget Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congressional support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DHS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[execution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executive policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiscal policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[good governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grand strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inflation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joint Chiefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[means]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Millenium Challenge Account]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy integration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scholar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Department of Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USAID]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ways]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=425</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I think a good starting place to assess executive department policy integration begins with the strategy formulation phase for what types of policies the executive is going to endorse and promote. For the purposes of this post, by executive I mean ‘the President of the United States.’ Ultimately the strategic planning system identifies the ends, ways and means of a sound and compelling strategy that “integrates the processes and documents” of the people working under him and the “people and organizations with which he directly coordinates” (Meinhart 2006, 304, 311). As a scholar, I would want to know how the executive came up with the policy, what the goals were, and what the strategy was to advance the policy.

            Yarger adds that the overarching strategy must be proactive and anticipatory, resource-balanced, driven by political purposes, hierarchical, comprehensive and derived from “thorough analysis and knowledge of the strategic situation and environment” (2006, 107-111). ]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/crafting-a-national-security-grand-strategy-and-navigating-its-effective-integration-as-a-policy-across-the-whole-of-government/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">425</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Engaging the Dragon Through Peaceful Deterrence: Japan’s Need to Recalibrate Its Strategy of Accommodation with China</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/engaging-the-dragon-through-peaceful-deterrence-japans-need-to-recalibrate-its-strategy-of-accommodation-with-china/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/engaging-the-dragon-through-peaceful-deterrence-japans-need-to-recalibrate-its-strategy-of-accommodation-with-china/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:03:11 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Global Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paid Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[A2/AD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accommodation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[active defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alliances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anarchy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[APEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arc of Freedom and Prosperity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 9]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ASEAN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Asia-Pacific]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balance of threat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bandwagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bilateral trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bretton Woods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charter of the United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coast guard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collective self defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collective struggle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communist Party of China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concert of democracies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Confucian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core values]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterbalancing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defensive realism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diplomacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dispute settlement mechanisms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dynamic deterrence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EAS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[East Asian Summit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic coercion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign Direct Investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of navigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grand strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hypothesis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IMF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Court of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Monetary Fund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maritime incident]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maritime Self-Defense Forces]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marxism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[means]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSDF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[multilateral]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual benefit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual nonaggression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual noninterference in internal affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual respect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NATO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ODA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[official development assistance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[one China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paracels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peaceful coexistence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peaceful deterrence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[People’s Republic of China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philippines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power trajectory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[provocative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[realism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebalance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reciprocal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[redistribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regional security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right of self defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rising power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule of law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sansha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security dilemma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senkakus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shanghai Cooperation Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soft power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South China Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spratlys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategic alliances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sun Tzu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[territorial integrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[threat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Three Non-Nuclear Principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tibet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.-Japan Alliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Convention on the Law of the Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UNCLOS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[universal values]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[values]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vietnam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Walt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ways]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wen Jiabao]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Trade Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WTO]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=408</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[For the past ten years China has gradually asserted itself in the South China Sea as it has re-risen to major power status within the tenets of the Beijing Consensus and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.   Meanwhile, Japan waited until 2006 to launch its “Arc of Freedom and Prosperity” grand strategy for counterbalancing China and reasserting itself in the Asia Pacific.  There are profound differences between the two strategies in terms of the values they espouse as well as their ends, ways, means for achieving the national interests. 

Japan’s strategy towards China has been primarily one of accommodation and engagement, but China has taken advantage of Japan’s polite acquiescence to their power trajectory.  Territorial disputes over the Spratlys, Paracels and now the Senkakus, combined with China’s threats of economic coercion, threaten regional stability as Japan reaches out to like-minded Asia-Pacific states through defense, diplomacy and development alliances.  
 
Purpose Statement and Hypothesis

The purpose of the essay is to examine the key differences between Japan and China’s grand strategies, especially the values that guide their strategies and national interests, and the capabilities, resources and alliances required to execute the strategies, challenges for implementation, likelihood of success, and the implications for long-term peace and stability that depend on which strategy ultimately prevails.  The study aims to fill a gap in the literature that fails to fully analyze and compare the competing universal values espoused by each grand strategy and how these values could shape the emerging balance of power in the Asia-Pacific.

The central hypothesis is that in order to avoid Chinese domination of its regional sphere of influence, Japan must modify its strategy of accommodation and engagement to one of “peaceful deterrence” based upon an enhanced security posture that is values-based, multilateral in nature and regionally structured as a concert of democracies.  ]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/engaging-the-dragon-through-peaceful-deterrence-japans-need-to-recalibrate-its-strategy-of-accommodation-with-china/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">408</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>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>To what extent is the cultivation of economic growth under Western ‘free market’ principles even possible in the developing world?</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/to-what-extent-is-the-cultivation-of-economic-growth-under-western-free-market-auspices-feasible-in-the-developing-world/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/to-what-extent-is-the-cultivation-of-economic-growth-under-western-free-market-auspices-feasible-in-the-developing-world/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:35:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Post Conflict Reconstruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capital account liberalization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Republic of the Congo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[developing world]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[division of labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Easterly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic growth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic interdependence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equilibrium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethnic groups]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Huntington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IMF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market-dominant majority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marxism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meltdown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[multilateral institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nondiscrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poverty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rational choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reciprocity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule of law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shared values]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Somalia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stabilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state capitalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state sovereignty]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=334</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Assuming that the ‘developing world’ includes the entire developing world, not just states undergoing post-conflict reconstruction (PCR), I think we must first define what Western ‘free market’ auspices are, and how might they be cultivated under Western/liberal principles.

Gilpin asserts that “Liberalism may, in fact, be defined as a doctrine and set of principles for organizing and managing a market economy in order to achieve maximum efficiency, economic growth and individual welfare” that is committed to “free markets and minimal state intervention,” “individual equality and liberty,” and the “premise … that the individual consumer, firm, or household is the basis for society” (421-422). Does this type of economy promote the stability a developing state needs?

Liberalism has its own set of empirical economic laws geared towards stability to include: comparative advantage, marginal utility, a quantity theory of money and rational choice that lead a market economy towards a “powerful tendency towards equilibrium and inherent stability” (Gilpin 422-423). ]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/to-what-extent-is-the-cultivation-of-economic-growth-under-western-free-market-auspices-feasible-in-the-developing-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">334</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Challenges Facing Outside Actors in Balancing Punitive and Reconciliatory Measures in Nation/State-Building and the Optimum Division of Labor to Overcome Them</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/challenges-facing-outside-actors-in-balancing-punitive-and-reconciliatory-measures-in-nationstate-building-and-the-optimum-division-of-labor-to-overcome-them/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/challenges-facing-outside-actors-in-balancing-punitive-and-reconciliatory-measures-in-nationstate-building-and-the-optimum-division-of-labor-to-overcome-them/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:43:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paid Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Post Conflict Reconstruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acquis communautaire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amnesty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[black market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bosnia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bosnian War Crimes Chamber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brain drain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[building capacity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capacity building]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ceasefires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil society development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civilians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cold war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[common national identity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidence-building measures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core pillars of societal reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dayton Agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DD&R]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[demobilizing combatants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development projects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disarmament]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disarming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[division of labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic sanctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethnic instability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU accession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EULEX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failed states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fragile states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gbagbo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Haiti]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[host state consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[humanitarian assistance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICTY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDPs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IMF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impartiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infrastructure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internally displaced persons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Criminal Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IOs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kosovo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legitimacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[loans and grants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandate of neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military coup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[militias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minimum use of force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MNFs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MONUSCO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[multinational forces]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nation building]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nation/state-building]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NATO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NGOs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-governmental organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OECD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Office of the High Representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OHR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[organized crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peacekeeping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post conflict reconstruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power-sharing agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[punitive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reconciliation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reconciliatory measures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regional alliances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regional organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reparations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resettlement of refugees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule of law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rules of engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scarce resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[socioeconomic framework]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Somalia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state building]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Timor-Leste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[traditional peacekeeping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tribunals partial amnesties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truth commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Assistance Mission to Rwanda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Operation in Somalia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UNAMIR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UNOSOM II]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victor’s justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war criminals]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=327</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[External actors such as international organizations (IOs), regional alliances (RAs), individual states, multinational forces (MNFs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have increasingly intervened in fragile and failed states in postconflict scenarios following the end of the Cold War. The nation/state-building processes (NSB) implemented by these actors to rebuild the “socioeconomic framework of society … [to include] the framework of governance and rule of law” (Hamre &#038; Sullivan 89) attempt to strike a reasonable balance between punitive and reconciliatory measures in their efforts to rehabilitate security, political, economic and social institutions as well as establish a sense of common identity among citizens (Bercovitch &#038; Jackson 175). 

This essay will analyze NSB processes around the core pillars of societal reform necessary to prevent a return to violence in context to the following points of emphasis:

(1)	 What types of challenges do the above-listed outside actors face in striking the balance between punitive and reconciliatory measures in NSB processes?

(2)	What division of labor among IOs, RAs, states and NGOs is likely to prove most effective in meeting such challenges in the future and why? 

The posts, views and opinions expressed on this site 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-facing-outside-actors-in-balancing-punitive-and-reconciliatory-measures-in-nationstate-building-and-the-optimum-division-of-labor-to-overcome-them/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">327</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do NGOs have a Place in Conflict Resolution?  Are They Really Neutral? Are Military PRTs the Answer?</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/do-ngos-have-a-place-in-conflict-resolution-what-about-neutrality-are-military-prts-the-answer/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/do-ngos-have-a-place-in-conflict-resolution-what-about-neutrality-are-military-prts-the-answer/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:42:15 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prevent/Contain Intl. Conflicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CARE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil-Military Operations Centers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CMOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[code of conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict prevention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cornish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[do no harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[early warning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failed states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Haliburton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[humanitarian assistance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Humanitarian Information Centers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDPs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[InterAction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iviolability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NGOs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political legitimacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private military firms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Provincial Reconstruction Teams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRTs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reconstruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Red Cross Code of Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shaming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sudan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[survival]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trust building]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=309</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[NGOs are essential to conflict resolution in as much as they possess the necessary skills, knowledge, personnel and experience to help resolve the conflict and the context is favorable to their participation. Certainly, the traditional role of the NGO has changed in nature from one of purely humanitarian relief to one that includes the roles of civil society builder and peace broker. This role transformation challenges the NGO’s assertion of neutrality and inviolability. Pamela Aall lists certain conditions that must exist prior to NGO conflict resolution intervention, saying NGOs must have:

The posts, views and opinions expressed on this site 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/do-ngos-have-a-place-in-conflict-resolution-what-about-neutrality-are-military-prts-the-answer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">309</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>
	</channel>
</rss>
