[GA - PASSED] Wartime Journalism Protection Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cretox

Cretox

Somehow, Palpatine has returned
TNP Nation
Cretox State
Discord
Cretox#0125
ga.jpg

Wartime Journalism Protection Act
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Free Press
Proposed by: Foril | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly,

CONCERNED that there is currently no World Assembly legislation that protects wartime journalists,

HORRIFIED that wartime journalists may get wounded, kidnapped, or even killed on the frontline simply for doing their job, and

SEEKING to introduce better protections for wartime journalists to facilitate better transmission of information and better protection of lives,

HEREBY ENACTS the following:
  1. For the purposes of this resolution:
    1. a "war zone" is an area in which acts of war are ongoing,
    2. "journalistic activities" are actions conducted with the express purpose of publishing information in the media, such as collecting information about the events of a war, interviewing local people and military personnel in the war zone, or taking photographs or videos of the war, and
    3. a "wartime journalist" is a civilian wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press, and who is undertaking journalistic activities in a war zone.
  2. Wartime journalists must be allowed freedom of movement in war zones and will not be denied access to an area to report on events there, unless such restriction is absolutely necessary to prevent harm to individuals or they are trespassing on private property.

  3. Wartime journalists may report on any activity that occurs within a war zone, unless reporting on such activities could lead to loss of life or property, harm to individuals or property, or the jeopardisation of military efforts.

  4. The protections enumerated in Articles 2 and 3 are subject to prior and standing international law. They shall not be granted to any wartime journalist who:
    1. commits espionage,
    2. is carrying weapons,
    3. interrupts active combat situations,
    4. enters or passes through any location, if doing so is likely to lead to imminent loss of life or harm to individuals, or to the jeopardisation of military efforts, or
    5. otherwise violates the provisions of this resolution.
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
Last edited:
A flawed proposal at its core, "Wartime Journalism Protection Act" attempts to ensure that journalists are granted freedom to move and report in warzones so long as their activities do not compromise military operations. However, the very concept of such a proposal is inherently problematic. The nature of information is such that it is nearly impossible to discern whether it could be potentially compromising at some point in the future, and it is equally difficult to prevent information from being released once it is accessed. The simple fact that national militaries would be forced to allow civilian reporting in warzones unless they can prove on the spot that said reporting would definitively lead to a loss of life is reason enough to oppose this proposal.

Additionally, the current writing of the legislation does not prohibit member nations and their armed forces from detaining and arresting journalists for reporting, and does not define what constitutes reporting, meaning that journalists, in effect, can easily be stripped of the freedoms afforded by the rest of this proposal should a member nation desire to do so.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote General Assembly proposal, "Wartime Journalism Protection Act".
 
Last edited:
Against. Fair questions have been raised regarding Clauses 3 and 4.4. Good topic, not a finished resolution however.
 
I'd be happy to try and address specific concerns about clause 4.4, if that's helpful. It would not be right to force member states to allow freedom of movement to reporters to the detriment of their own military endeavours; the repercussions for entire nations could be huge in such situations, and as a result it is better to take caution and avoid imposing potentially dangerous measures for too wide a range of possible scenarios.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top