<?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>UN Convention on the Law of the Sea &#8211; Kapok Tree Diplomacy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/tag/un-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea/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>Tue, 07 Nov 2023 06:38:34 +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>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>How well do the thoughts and intentions of the Framers of the Constitution on responsibility for national security still hold up today?</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/how-well-do-the-thoughts-and-intentions-of-the-framers-of-the-constitution-on-responsibility-for-national-security-still-hold-up-today/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/how-well-do-the-thoughts-and-intentions-of-the-framers-of-the-constitution-on-responsibility-for-national-security-still-hold-up-today/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advice and consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article II]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AUMF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barenblatt v. United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[due process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive Clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executive power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federalist Paper No. 64]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[founders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourteenth Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourth Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule of law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search and seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Convention on the Law of the Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unreasonable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Powers Acts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yemen]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=421</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Framers for their part did have a lot to say about the delineation of powers in these areas. The Constitution is a good place to start in determining how those powers are enumerated and what limits if any apply to them. 

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says: 

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Passed 12/15/1791).

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says:

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Passed 7/9/1868) 

These amendments lay out the case for citizens’ right to privacy and limits on government instrusion in this matter without spelling out what constitutes “unreasonable.”]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/how-well-do-the-thoughts-and-intentions-of-the-framers-of-the-constitution-on-responsibility-for-national-security-still-hold-up-today/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">421</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>Challenges to Keeping the Peace in International Law</title>
		<link>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/challenges-to-keeping-the-peace-in-international-law/</link>
					<comments>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/challenges-to-keeping-the-peace-in-international-law/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[truepath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 21:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intl Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CTBT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Darfur]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geneva Conventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human dignity violations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Court of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Criminal Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international tribunals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice vs. peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keep the peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kosovo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new START]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nicaragua v. United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noncompliance Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear proliferation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rwanda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Convention on the Law of the Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN Security Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weapons of mass destruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WMD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Trade Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yugoslavia]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/?p=238</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Introduction

The need for a “fundamental institutional arrangement not only to address questions of war and peace and human rights but to develop legal norms in other areas, such as labor, health, and communications,” has enticed the vast majority of states to consent at some level to a growing and complex body of rules and norms designed to serve state interests by securing and furthering a peaceful, prosperous and stable society (Dunoff et. al. 16). Today these norms permeate the mission and operations of numerous international institutions like the United Nations, providing peaceful dispute resolution tools in such diverse areas as trade, military operations and human rights.

While most states desire to live in peace with one another and follow the fundamental norms of international law, a few states and some increasingly dangerous non-state actors like Al- Qaeda prefer to do whatever they want. In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, U.S. President Barack Obama added, “[the] old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats … wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos” (Obama 51).

This paper will examine what it means to “keep the peace” in an era of the globalization of world politics and unprecedented challenges and threats. The specific challenges to be addressed include nuclear proliferation, military conflict and terrorism, international trade and economic relations, diminishing natural resources, and humanitarian and human dignity issues. The paper will also examine whether existing international institutions and legal doctrines are likely to resolve the issue, and where are they likely to fall short?

The posts, views and opinions expressed in this post are completely my own and do not represent the views or opinions of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of the Navy (DON) or any of the Armed Forces.]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/challenges-to-keeping-the-peace-in-international-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">238</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
