<?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 General Assembly &#8211; Kapok Tree Diplomacy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://kapoktreediplomacy.com/hp_wordpress/tag/un-general-assembly/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>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>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>
	</channel>
</rss>
