<?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>treaties &#8211; Kapok Tree Diplomacy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/tag/treaties/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>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:21:20 +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>The Key Differences between First and Second Generation Human Rights</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/the-critical-differences-between-first-and-second-generation-human-rights/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/the-critical-differences-between-first-and-second-generation-human-rights/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:39:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Human Rights & Conflict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paid Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a priori]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aspirational]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brazil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coercion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collective good]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Convention Against Torture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enlightenment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entitlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Court of Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom from torture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government of South Africa vs. Grootboom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICCPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICESCR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inalienable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intensity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intentional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inter-American Court of Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Bill of Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Covenant on Economic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jus cogens peremptory norms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justiciability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Landau Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lex ferenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberty rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maastricht Guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negative rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[positive rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[punishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to work]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights to goods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights vs. resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[severe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social and Cultural Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[socio-economic rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Rapporteurs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treaties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN General Assembly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UNDHR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Universal Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vienna Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waterboarding]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=361</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The recognition of individual human rights under international law took on a “formal and authoritative expression” following the end of World War II when the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 (Steiner, Alston &#038; Goodman (SAG) 134). The UNDHR was designed to “take the form of a declaration – that is, a recommendation by the General Assembly to Member States that would exert a moral and political influence on states rather than constitute a legally binding document” (SAG 135). 

	Following approval of the UDHR, the UN Commission, General Assembly and Third Committee began work on a more “detailed and comprehensive” expression of human rights that emerged in the form of “two principal treaties – The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)” which were both approved in 1966 and both entered into force in 1976 through the required number of ratifications (SAG 136). The ICCPR and ICESCR were designed to be more legally binding than the UDHR. Collectively, these three documents are often referred to as the ‘International Bill of Human Rights’ (SAG 133). 
	
While the ICCPR and ICESCR are said by the Vienna Conference (1993) to be “universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated” (263), there is not universal agreement that the two sets of rights are in fact universal or that they are of equal political and moral weight. The complete set of rights was split into two documents for a reason. With the advent of the Cold War, ideological differences began to emerge over commitments to “first generation” civil and political rights (CPRs) and “second generation” economic and social rights (ESRs) (SAG 136). This bifurcation of rights is often challenged by many as an unfair hierarchical categorization, while others may point to CPRs as being an attempt at Western “ideological imperialism” (SAG 140-141). 

This essay will explore the critical differences between the two documents as well as some similarities. Moreover, the essay will examine the content, application and enforcement characteristics of each document, challenges to enforcement, the nature of each set of rights and their critical differences, and conclude with the assertion that CPRs are more important. 
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/the-critical-differences-between-first-and-second-generation-human-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">361</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is International Law Genuine &#8216;Law&#8217;?</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/is-international-law-genuine-law/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/is-international-law-genuine-law/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:24:07 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intl Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Law Institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bolton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customary law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global citizens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legally binding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[positive law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rommen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sources and evidences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treaties]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=316</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In answering this question, I must first appeal to the American Law Institute’s “Restatement of the Law, Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United States.” In Section 101 it defines international law as follows: “international law consists of rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of states and of international organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some of their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical.”]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/is-international-law-genuine-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">316</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Efficacy of the Modern Institution of International Law</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/the-efficacy-of-the-modern-institution-of-international-law/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/the-efficacy-of-the-modern-institution-of-international-law/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:51:09 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intl Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paid Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Law Institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conceptual changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[definition of international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divine rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hugo Grotius]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Bolton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jus cogens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal norms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal obligation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legitimacy of international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Missouri v. Holland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[municipal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinio juris sive necessitatis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peremptory norms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rainbow Warrior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reid v. Covert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self-executing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement of international disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sources and evidences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terra nullius]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[territorial issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treaties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treaty reservations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=202</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[International law has evolved into a growing and complex body of rules and norms that states consent to based upon their concrete interests in a peaceful, prosperous and stable society. While international law differs and often competes substantively from municipal law, international law plays a predominantly positive role in allowing nations to benefit from the binding obligations derived from its sources. 

This essay will cover a brief history and definition of international law in Section One to include its sources and evidences followed by a comparison of international law with municipal law in Section Two with an emphasis on treaties.  The paper will conclude with some observations on how well the framework of international law actually works. 

The views and opinions expressed in this paper are completely my own and do not represent the views or opinions of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of the Navy (DON) or any of the Armed Forces.]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/the-efficacy-of-the-modern-institution-of-international-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">202</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
