[GA- PASSED] Protections In Wartime Reporting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jag

Jag

Resident
-
TNP Nation
Nouvel Empire
Discord
_jaggedfel_
ga.jpg

Protections In Wartime Reporting
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of World Assembly law on this important topic since various past resolutions attempting to address this matter were repealed,

Concerned that member nations or entities therein may, as a result, attempt to unduly harm wartime reporters in order 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 persons 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, willfully 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 reporting of classified information for the purpose of obtaining a strategic advantage for one entity over another.

  5. Should a provision of this resolution contradict some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence. This resolution should not 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
7802
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overview
This proposal aims to provide fundamental protections and guarantees for journalists and reporters operating within active war zones. It stipulates that such wartime reporters are to be considered non-combatants, and that they should accordingly not be targeted by combatant forces. Furthermore, the proposal forbids member states from denying access to or deporting, prosecuting, persecuting, or otherwise discriminating against individuals on the basis of their participating in wartime reporting. Lastly, it provides exemptions for member states where wartime reporters are specifically operating to aid one or more combatant force(s).

Recommendation
The proposal strikes a nice balance between the rights and dignities of those operating in a journalistic capacity, and allowing member states to take legitimate action against those individuals using the veneer of wartime reporting to take part in hostilities. Article 4(c) faced additional scrutiny due to the exemption it provided member states seeking to target reporters that collected and provided classified information to aid one or more sides in a conflict over others. Given that this does not negate the practice of collecting and cataloging open-source intelligence (OSINT), we do not find any issues with this Article or another provision contained within the proposal.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly Resolution at vote, "Protections in Wartime Reporting".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Against
While I do agree that targeting any form of non-combatant, including but not limited to war time reporters, journalists and photographers, I am firmly against them having full freedom of movement within a warzone, as even if the aim is not to uncover classified information, the reporting on the positions and rough situation of the troops pose a critical danger to those forces.
We live in an era where information can be shared in real time, and allowing reporting of the front lines in such a manner would be akin to giving OPSEC a death sentence.
As such, I recommend adding a clause where the force being reported on should have the right to veto the content that is published, unless it constitutes as proof of war crimes being commited by them. Regardless of that, there should also be a mandatory minimum period of delay before such information is published, as to ensure OPSEC.

I do understand that it is beyond the scope of this resolution to adress the content and manner in which said information is published, but without the ability to restrict movement to areas where classified operations are taking place, it becomes impossible to prevent the situation detailed in the point 4.3, especially if said leak happens by accident or negligence instead of malice.
 
Kirxas:
Against
While I do agree that targeting any form of non-combatant, including but not limited to war time reporters, journalists and photographers, I am firmly against them having full freedom of movement within a warzone, as even if the aim is not to uncover classified information, the reporting on the positions and rough situation of the troops pose a critical danger to those forces.
We live in an era where information can be shared in real time, and allowing reporting of the front lines in such a manner would be akin to giving OPSEC a death sentence.
As such, I recommend adding a clause where the force being reported on should have the right to veto the content that is published, unless it constitutes as proof of war crimes being commited by them. Regardless of that, there should also be a mandatory minimum period of delay before such information is published, as to ensure OPSEC.

I do understand that it is beyond the scope of this resolution to adress the content and manner in which said information is published, but without the ability to restrict movement to areas where classified operations are taking place, it becomes impossible to prevent the situation detailed in the point 4.3, especially if said leak happens by accident or negligence instead of malice.
Click to expand...
This does not grant reporters "full freedom of movement within a warzone". It merely forbids member nations from discriminating against reporters in restrictions on freedom of travel. As long as the restrictions you impose on freedom of movement for reporters apply to everyone (or any civilian), not just wartime reporters, then there's no problem. Presumably, you would prevent any civilian from entering a location wherein there is a classified military operation, not just reporters.

This has no effect on the ability of member nations to restrict the publication of information collected by wartime reporting. That is deliberately left up to a future resolution to address in general what information may be published by the press (I believe that @Hulldom is drafting such a proposal on press freedoms?)
 
Last edited:
Previous discussion:
forum.thenorthpacific.org

[GA - WITHDRAWN] Protecting Wartime Reporters

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...
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org

This would be the seventh 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/
 
I am inclined to vote for because my original concerns have been addressed. Though I note this particular proposal is still relatively toothless as compared to what an ideal proposal would look like.

Switching to present because I finally see how the entire proposal can be reinterpreted differently

For the record, my original reading was that twitter users providing OSINT (directly or indirectly) can't be considered as reporters because they are not doing it for journalistic purposes. But looking at it; it seems the opposite reading is very possible because of no clear definition of journalism.
 
Last edited:
Fregerson:
Switching to present because I finally see how the entire proposal can be reinterpreted differently

For the record, my original reading was that twitter users providing OSINT (directly or indirectly) can't be considered as reporters because they are not doing it for journalistic purposes. But looking at it; it seems the opposite reading is very possible because of no clear definition of journalism.
Click to expand...
Even if those providing OSINT were considered reporting, I don't see how they can even colourably fit the 4c definition of espionage. For something to be espionage, it must be "clandestine" and the information gathered must be "classified". OSINT is, by definition, based on non-classified information, and is not gathered through clandestine means.
 
Ice Empire:
Even if those providing OSINT were considered reporting, I don't see how they can even colourably fit the 4c definition of espionage. For something to be espionage, it must be "clandestine" and the information gathered must be "classified". OSINT is, by definition, based on non-classified information, and is not gathered through clandestine means.
Click to expand...
Actually, not going to lie, this was my original interpretation. However, I realised that this definition isn't a straightforward default.

Take for example, if someone reports on troops moving through Road X from Town A to Town B. This may be considered as a "classified information" by the military as this will aid the enemy to know that reinforcements are coming into Town B. What the Twitter users did was basically convert this information into OSINT. The information, for the rest of the militaries in the world, is now, OSINT, but it isn't OSINT at the point when the person took a video of the troop movement and publish it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top