<?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>Sudan &#8211; Kapok Tree Diplomacy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/tag/sudan/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=6.4.3</generator>
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">44605809</site>	<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>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>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>
	</channel>
</rss>
