[GA - WITHDRAWN] Protecting Wartime Reporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jag

Jag

Citizen
-
TNP Nation
Nouvel Empire
Discord
_jaggedfel_
ga.jpg

Protecting Wartime Reporters
Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Free Press
Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5 | Onsite Topic​

The World Assembly,

Highlighting the dangerous conditions faced by those sent to an active warzone to gather information for journalism,

Emphasising that wartime reporting is necessary to ensure that belligerents in wars face due scrutiny, helping to prevent war crimes and other atrocities in the field of war,

Identifying an ominous silence of World Assembly law on this important topic since the repeal of various past resolutions attempting to address this matter,

Concerned that member nations or entities therein may, as a result, attempt to unduly harm wartime reporters to attempt to suppress their necessary activities,

Enacts as follows _



  1. So be it as follows within this resolution _
    1. "Wartime reporting" refers to the gathering of information conducted from a warzone for the purpose of said information's publication as journalism; as well as the provision of technical assistance in the same.

    2. A "warzone" is an area of armed conflict involving at least one military force; as well as the region immediately surrounding that area.

  2. The status of a non-combatant, along with all rights, protections, and responsibilities that such status entails, must be granted to any individual acting as a wartime reporter. Accordingly, the act of knowingly targeting a wartime reporter with violence shall be considered a war crime.

  3. All member nations must refrain from discriminating or retaliating against any individual for performing or facilitating wartime reporting, or attempting the same; including by
    1. penalising or prosecuting people for performing or facilitating wartime reporting;

    2. deporting or denying entry to individuals due to their status as wartime reporters, or otherwise discriminating against wartime reporters in restrictions on freedom of travel; or

    3. denying equality under the law to wartime reporters.

  4. This resolution does not protect any wartime reporter who, in the conflict which they are reporting from, wilfully attempts to
    1. use or direct the use of force, outside of allowable self-defense, to actively support a belligerent in said conflict;

    2. transport supplies for a belligerent in said conflict; or

    3. participate in the clandestine collection or provision of classified information for the purpose of informing military, political, or economic activities.

  5. Should a provision of this resolution contradict some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence. Singular terms in this resolution include the plural thereof, and vice versa. This resolution is not to be interpreted as addressing the eventual broadcasting or publication of information collected by wartime reporting.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
3400
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For.

Comfed:
Against if only due to the sheer laziness in clause 5. >.>
Click to expand...
The topic of what kind of information can be published in journalism and how seems better addressed by a generic freedom of the press resolution, hence the scope is limited to the gathering of information in wartime.
 
Last edited:
This would be the sixth time we are voting on this topic in two and a half years.

The previous discussions are:

GA#591: (this repealed GA#554, and by the author of the current resolution we are considering) https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195468/
GA#591: (this was withdrawn once): https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195428/
GA#554: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9194611/
GA#504: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9192720/
GA#501: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9192629/
 
Against

I'm not happy with the definition of espionage provided in 4c, and believe there's too many oversights in the resolution as a whole to pass. My main issue with 5 is the lazy "singular terms in this resolution include the plural thereof, and vice versa" part, which neither makes sense nor should be present in a law; I don't have much issue with the contradictions clause.
 
Last edited:
nvxl:
Against

I'm not happy with the definition of espionage provided in 4c, and believe there's too many oversights in the resolution as a whole to pass. My main issue with 5 is the lazy "singular terms in this resolution include the plural thereof, and vice versa" part, which neither makes sense nor should be present in a law; I don't have much issue with the contradictions clause.
Click to expand...

4c is a very important point which I missed completely. If your interpretation is correct, I suspect the espionage clause would be enough to get anyone contributing to open source intelligence (OSINT) on Twitter or Telegram to be killed by the enemy side as a combatant.
 
Last edited:
nvxl:
Against

I'm not happy with the definition of espionage provided in 4c, and believe there's too many oversights in the resolution as a whole to pass.
Click to expand...
Why? While I'm not sure if this is necessarily your issue with 4c, the requirements are not just that it has to "inform military, political, or economic activities"; it also has to be done with the purpose of informing those activites, and it has to be clandestine. Actual wartime reporting is not performed clandestinely, nor is the purpose necessarily to inform private activities -- even if it may also inform private activities as a "side-effect".

nvxl:
My main issue with 5 is the lazy "singular terms in this resolution include the plural thereof, and vice versa" part, which neither makes sense nor should be present in a law; I don't have much issue with the contradictions clause.
Click to expand...
That wording is not particularly novel, nor do I see why it's a problem.

Simone_Republic:
4c is a very important point. if your interpretation is correct, I suspect the espionage clause would be enough to get anyone contributing to open source intelligence (OSINT) on Twitter or Telegram to be killed by the enemy side as a combatant.
Click to expand...
Once again, this proposal's definition only defines something as "espionage" if it is "clandestine", inter alia. OSINT by definition [1] is not clandestine.
 
Last edited:
Ice Empire:
Why? While I'm not sure if this is necessarily your issue with 4c, the requirements are not just that it has to "inform military, political, or economic activities"; it also has to be done with the purpose of informing those activites, and it has to be clandestine. Actual wartime reporting is not performed clandestinely, nor is the purpose necessarily to inform private activities -- even if it may also inform private activities as a "side-effect".
Click to expand...

I think there's an issue caused by ambiguity in the clause, as to whether "clandestine collection or provision" expects the provision to be clandestine, since I believe there will be many cases where the collection of information in a warzone will necessarily be clandestine. The main part of it that I do not like is "military, political, or economic", for self-evident reasons.

Ice Empire:
That wording is not particularly novel, nor do I see why it's a problem.
Click to expand...

I'm not a common law court, I don't vote in accordance with whatever's been passed by others (as far as I'm aware, I didn't vote on any of those); if I think something is bad, that's grounds for me to vote against, regardless of what's passed prior.
 
nvxl:
I think there's an issue caused by ambiguity in the clause, as to whether "clandestine collection or provision" expects the provision to be clandestine, since I believe there will be many cases where the collection of information in a warzone will necessarily be clandestine. The main part of it that I do not like is "military, political, or economic", for self-evident reasons.
Click to expand...
The series-qualifier canon would mean that "clandestine" applies to "provision" just as it does to "collection".

nvxl:
I'm not a common law court, I don't vote in accordance with whatever's been passed by others (as far as I'm aware, I didn't vote on any of those); if I think something is bad, that's grounds for me to vote against, regardless of what's passed prior.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, though I still don't see why it's a problem. If anything, it addresses potential ambiguity in the text.
 
Last edited:
Ice Empire:
Fair enough, though I still don't see why it's a problem. If anything, it addresses potential ambiguity in the text.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how it could possibly reduce ambiguity. By saying, effectively, "oh, by the way, some bits in here but maybe not others - you can just figure it out, I don't care - might maybe be different from how they're actually written", you're just making it unclear. If you wanted to reduce ambiguity, why can't you just address the specific areas which require it? Others have also said that it's just generally a bit lazy, and doesn't reflect well on the writing as a whole, though I don't think laziness is necessarily problematic in itself.
 
nvxl:
I don't understand how it could possibly reduce ambiguity. By saying, effectively, "oh, by the way, some bits in here but maybe not others - you can just figure it out, I don't care - might maybe be different from how they're actually written", you're just making it unclear. If you wanted to reduce ambiguity, why can't you just address the specific areas which require it? Others have also said that it's just generally a bit lazy, and doesn't reflect well on the writing as a whole, though I don't think laziness is necessarily problematic in itself.
Click to expand...
Hm, I see your point. I don't think it introduces much ambiguity -- it's only really intended to prevent nonsense like "well if we only prosecute ONE person for wartime reporting it TECHNICALLY isn't 'penalising or prosecuting people' (in the plural) so we're ACTUALLY not in non-compliance" -- but I understand your position.
 
Last edited:
Ice Empire:
Why? While I'm not sure if this is necessarily your issue with 4c, the requirements are not just that it has to "inform military, political, or economic activities"; it also has to be done with the purpose of informing those activites, and it has to be clandestine. Actual wartime reporting is not performed clandestinely, nor is the purpose necessarily to inform private activities -- even if it may also inform private activities as a "side-effect".


That wording is not particularly novel, nor do I see why it's a problem.


Once again, this proposal's definition only defines something as "espionage" if it is "clandestine", inter alia. OSINT by definition [1] is not clandestine.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think the definition of what constitutes OSINT is being redefined in the European theater as we speak (and after February 2022) and given the advent of social media.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top