[GA- PASSED] Protections In Wartime Reporting

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of World Assembly law on this important topic since various past resolutions attempting to address this matter were repealed,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...

• 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.

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...

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...

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...