DTIC ADA490787: Used Paper for Sale: Are Pacific Settlement Agreements Really Worth Anything?

0.86 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

,~
;'
United States Marine Corps
Command and StaffCollege
Marine Corps University ".'
2076 SouthStreet
Marine Corps CombatDevelopmentCommand
Quantico, Virginia 22134-5068
MASTER OFMILITARY STUDIES
TITLE:
USED PAPERFORSALE: AREPACIFIC SETTLEMENTAGREEMENTS
REALLY WORTHANYTHING?
AUTHOR:
Major Sean F. Conroy
AY07·08
MentorandOral~n~s"tteee ember:
~ ~
Approved:
Date: ~ Al?Bll- 0200~
~olIllIl1~tetre~e.\J C'\~
OralDefense M g,e.y -::S-;\..\\Y:">
~
Approved: -
Date: C( '- 0
~~'------------
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
2008 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2008 to 00-00-2008
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Used Paper for Sale: Are Pacific Settlement Agreements Really Worth
5b. GRANT NUMBER
Anything?
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Combat Development REPORT NUMBER
Command,Command and Staff College, Marine Corps University,2076
South Street,Quantico,VA,22134-5068
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 29
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
11
ExecutiveSummary
Title: UsedPaperForSale: Are PacificSettlementAgreementsReallyWorthAnything?
Author: Major SeanF. Conroy
Thesis: Pacific settlementagreements are contributorsto thepeacefulness ofanation.
Discussion: This paperis writtenwithinthe backdrop ofinternational agreements and
the UnitedStates' seemingunilateralwithdrawal amidpublicuproar. Anattemptwas
madeto find a linkbetweenthepeacefulness ofanationanditsratificationofpacific
settlementagreements. Hypothesizingthatpacific settlementagreementswould
influence anationbybothexistence andnumber, regressionanalysiswasperformed.
Theresults do notenabletheresearcherto makepredictions aboutstatebehaviorbased
onratificationofpacific settlementagreements.
Conclusion: Thehypotheseshavetheoretical supportdespitetheempiricalfindings.
Moreresearchisnecessary. Futureresearchshouldconcentrate oncontrolvariables as
well astypeofagreement.
111
DISCLAIMER
THE OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS EXPRESSED HEREINARETHOSE OFTHE
INDIVIDUAL STUDENTAUTHORAND DONOTNECESSARILYREPRESENT
THEVIEWS OFEITHERTHEMARINE CORPS COMMANDAND STAFF
COLLEGE ORANYOTHERGOVERNMENTALAGENCY. REFERENCES TO
THIS STUDYSHOULD INCLUDETHEFOREGOING STATEMENT.
QUOTATIONFROM, ABSTRACTIONFROM, ORREPRODUCTION OFALL OR
ANYPARTOF THIS DOCUMENTIS PERMITTED PROVIDEDPROPER
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTIS MADE.
IV
Graphs
Page
Figure 1. Peace Years Dependent Variable ·..·········· 9
Figure2. Comparison o/Peace Years andMID years ·.·..·..······..······· 10
Figure3. PacificSettlements Independent Variable .11
Tables
Page
Table 1. RegressionResults 16
Table2. LogisticRegressionResults 17
v
Table ofContents
DISCLAIMER.............................................................................. iii
LIST OFFIGURES AND TABLES..................................................... iv
PREFACE................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION......................................................................... 1
InternationalEffect............................................................... 2
Pacific SettlementAgreements andtheU.S................................... 4
RESEARCH DESIGN..................................................................... 8
DependentVariable " '" '" " .. 8
IndependentVariable '" " '" . ... .... 10
ControlVariables... 11
RESULTS/DISCUSSION................................................................. 15
FUTURERESEARCH..................................................................... 17
ENDNOTES................................................................................. 19
BIBLIOGRAPHy................................. 20
VI
Preface
Pacific settlementagreements are a commonelementofanation's international
agreementportfolio. Whilethe results ofthis empiricalresearchdonotlend supportto
anexternalvalidityofsuchagreements, nonethelessthe commonality ofthe agreements
remains anissueforfurtherresearch.
This paperwas aneffortbymeto gainadditionalknowledgeandskillinbotha
differentareaofInternationalRelations andmethodology. Iwas encouragedbyDr.
DavidLelctzianofTexas TechUniversity, a conflictexpert,to explorenewareas of
InternationalRelations. Hespecificallyrecommendedexploringthe legal side of
InternationalRelations as, inhis opinion, itfit wellwithmylegalbackground. Having
achievedABD status,I amlooking downtheroadtowardadissertationanddefense.
This paperallowedmeto worktowards thatgoal. I wouldliketothankDr. Shibuyafor
graciouslyentertainingmy unscheduleddrops-into his office andrequests for guidance.
Heprovidedcriticalfocus atthepointswhereitwasmostneeded.
As yetthereis no likelihoodofestablishinganykindofinterntional
power...whichcaneffectivelycheckwrongdoing...Iregardtrustingto
fantastic peacetreaties, to impossiblepromises, to all kinds ofscraps of
paperwithoutanybackinginefficient force, as abhorrent.
- TheodoreRoosevelt
Introduction
MuchofrecentUnited States("U.S.") historyhas beenfocusedontorture.
Presidentialhopefuls havetakenpositions rangingfromunequivocallyopposedto
endorsing"enhanced"interrogationtechniques (apopulartermusedto referto amyriad
oftechniquesrangingfrom shakingto waterboarding). ConfIrmationhearingsfor
Attorney General candidatesfocused onlittleelse, as does repeatedcongressional
questioningofthenow-incumbent. This ismorethanmere election-yearpoliticking.
Thegenesis oftheinquiryisallegations bydetainees thattheyweretorturedbymethods
including"severebeatings,water-boarding, excruciating stresspositions, mock
executions, sleep deprivationandmuchelse."l Inaddition, international attentionis
focused ona20 July2007Executive Order("EO") authorizingthedirector ofthe Central
IntelligenceAgency("CIA")to approveinterrogationtechniques otherthanthose
specificallyprohibitedbyU.S. law. Theinternationalattentionbeginswiththe
ConventionagainstTortureandOtherCruel, InhumanorDegradingTreatment or
Punishment("ConventionagainstTorture") atreatyratifiedbytheU.S. in 1994. The
Senateratifiedthistreatywithanumberofreservations andunderstandings, stating
specifically,
[T]heUnited Statesunderstandsthat, inorderto constitutetorture, anact
mustbe specifIcallyintendedto inflict severephysicalormentalpainor
sufferingandthatmentalpainorsufferingrefersto prolongedmental
harmcausedbyorresultingfrom (l)the intentionalinflictionor
threatenedinflictionofseverephysicalpainorsuffering; (2)the
2
administrationorapplication, orthreatenedadministrationorapplication,
ofmindalteringsubstances orotherprocedures calculatedto disrupt
profoundlythe senses orthepersonality; (3) the threatofimminent
death...(emphasis added)?
When apparentviolations ofthetreatywererevealed, the currentadministration
madevarious arguments includingthatthe ConventionagainstTorture onlyappliedto (a)
acts committedonU.S. soil, (b) acts constitutingfull-blowntorture as opposedto lesser
abuses, and(c)thatthePresidenthadthepowerto "overridebothdomestic and
internationallaw.,,3 The Congress seemsresoluteinits effortto determine what
constitutestorture. Arecentbillbanningthe use ofanytechnique notlistedinthe
Army's FieldManual2-22.3 (HumanIntelligence CollectorOptions)was vetoedbythe
President. This billwas a directresponsetotheEO authorizingthe CIAto useenhanced
interrogationtechniques.
InternationalEffect
Theinternational communityobservestheseproceedings andmusttaketheminto
accountbothwhenevaluatingtheusefulness ofexistingagreements andalso theutilityof
enteringinto newagreements withtheU.S. Thispaperlooks onlyatpacificsettlement
agreements whichtheU.S. has ratifiedwithorwithoutreservation. Two additionallevels
ofanalysisflowfromthis paper. The firstis anation's utilityofenteringinto an
internationalagreement- onanytopic- withtheU.S. The secondis anevaluationa
nation'sutilityofenteringintointernationalagreements withanynation. International
agreements arelabor-intensiveintheirdrafting andexecution; iftheyare worthless
pieces ofpaper,thereis no reasonto enterintothem.
TheU.S. has enteredintonumerouspacific settlementagreements. Theserange
from global agreementsliketheCharteroftheUnitedNations ("UN")to regional
3
agreements liketheOrganizationofAmericanStates ("OAS"). Typicallythese
agreements callforthe use ofmethods otherthanmilitaryactionto resolve all disputes.
TheUN Chartercontains language encouragingpartiesto, "seeka solutionby
negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration,judicialsettlement,resortto
regionalagencies orarrangements, orotherpeacefulmeans" (Chapter 6, Article 33(1)).
Referencestopacific settlementagreementsfoundthroughouttheUNCharter,
specificallyinChapter 1(purposes andPrinciples) andChapter8 (Regional
Arrangements).
The CharterofOAS wentinto effecton 13 December 1951 whentwo-thirds of
u.s.
the state-signatoriesratified. The ratifiedon 15 June 1951,thoughitwas signedon
30 April 1948. Ittoo has unambiguous language callingfor "peacefulprocedures"
(Article 3(g)) andevensuggestingmethodsto settle"controversiesofan international
characterbetweentwo ormore Americanstates" (Article24). Additionallanguage
promotingpeacefulresolutionisfoundinArticles 21, 23, 25, and26.
Despitethese agreements, duringtheyears 1946-1998theU.S. steadilyengaged
4
inmilitarydisputeswithothernations. These agreements didnoteasilybecomepartof
U.S. law. ArticleVIoftheU.S. Constitution(the SupremacyClause) states "[t]his
Constitutionandthe laws oftheUnitedStates shallbemadeinpursuancethereof; andall
Treatiesmade, orwhich shallbemade, underthe AuthorityoftheUnited States, shallbe
the supremeLawofthe Land." Treaties occupy arealmoflawinbetweenthe
Constitutionandgenerallegislation. Whiletreatiesmustconformtothe Constitution,
generallegislationmustconformto boththe Constitutionandtheprovisions ofexisting
treaties. Treatiesarepowerfuldocuments,requiringextensivenegotiationbythe