<?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>territorial integrity &#8211; Kapok Tree Diplomacy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/tag/territorial-integrity/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>China&#8217;s Assertion of Sovereign Authority in the Global Commons and the Escalation of Legal Warfare in the Arctic</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/chinas-assertion-of-sovereign-authority-in-the-global-commons-and-the-escalation-of-legal-warfare-in-the-arctic/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/chinas-assertion-of-sovereign-authority-in-the-global-commons-and-the-escalation-of-legal-warfare-in-the-arctic/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Global Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intl Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intl. Political Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paid Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arctic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arctic Circle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arctic CounciI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arctic governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arctic militarization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arctic policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arctic resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arctic state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asymmetric warfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNOOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diaoyu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drilling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global commons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global prestige]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greenland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hydrocarbon deposits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iceland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indisputable sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Maritime Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal warfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Li Zhenfu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Malacca Straits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maritime shipping industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[melting ice caps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[militarization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-Arctic state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Northwest Passage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offensive realism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oil demand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[People’s Liberation Army]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philippines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polar ice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[psychological warfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regional hegemony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule of law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sovereign authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[territorial claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[territorial integrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transpolar sea route]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Convention on the Law of the Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UNCLOS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[undiscovered oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unrestricted warfare]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=659</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8220;China’s Assertion of Sovereign Authority in the Global Commons and the Escalation of Legal Warfare in the Arctic&#8221; by Jeff Dwiggins © Kapok Tree Diplomacy. June 2013. All rights reserved.]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/chinas-assertion-of-sovereign-authority-in-the-global-commons-and-the-escalation-of-legal-warfare-in-the-arctic/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">659</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>
	</channel>
</rss>
