Advertisement
by Soluna » Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:55 am
by Moronist Decisions » Sun Nov 06, 2011 5:37 am
by Connopolis » Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:32 am
Weed wrote:The above definition would include spies.
6) War correspondents that abuse their immunity by compromising the war effort in favor of any participating party shall have their immunity relinquished, and are subject to persecution by the afflicted nation, as are the home nation of the correspondent.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Lemon Land » Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:46 am
Moronist Decisions wrote:This appears to be impractical. Nice sentiment, but we don't think host nations should be held accountable for militants. Against.
by Connopolis » Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:49 am
Lemon Land wrote:Moronist Decisions wrote:This appears to be impractical. Nice sentiment, but we don't think host nations should be held accountable for militants. Against.
That is exactly our concern as well. Why should an entire nation be held responsible for actions of militants? Are they part of the nation's military? Have they been trained and will they even KNOW this resolution?
Yours,
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Lemon Land » Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:54 am
by Damanucus » Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:14 am
by Ziptron » Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:27 am
by Lordieth » Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:47 am
by Weed » Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:15 am
Connopolis wrote:Weed wrote:The above definition would include spies.
No, my dear ambassador, it does not. You yourself acknowledged the provision that prevents that:6) War correspondents that abuse their immunity by compromising the war effort in favor of any participating party shall have their immunity relinquished, and are subject to persecution by the afflicted nation, as are the home nation of the correspondent.
Upon leaving, they might be exempt from senseless slaughter, but they are subject to punishment by the afflicted nation. You also must note the realistic probability of the notions that nations may abuse this resolution; they are, in fact, held responsible in the international theatre, and their war correspondents may be tried in the ICC as per the provisions of GAR#102.
Yours in trying to find an unbiased media source,
by CHEVLANDIA » Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:18 am
War correspondents that abuse their immunity by compromising the war effort in favor of any participating party shall have their immunity relinquished
4) Individual member-states may deny war correspondents access to their territory, and as such, war correspondents must adhere to standard immigration policies prior to entering; war correspondents that enter without proper verification are exempt from all protection granted by the provisions of this resolution.
by Discoveria » Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:42 am
by Funky Town » Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:43 am
by Greto » Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:07 am
The Western Russians wrote:Move to London and you get a fuck load of chavs shouting at you telling you you're going to get stabbed. Whereas in Scotland you get a fuck load of homeless people shouting at you telling you you're going to get stabbed. Move to Wales and you'll get a fuck load of DRG telling you you're going to get stabbed. Move to Ireland you're going to get a fuck load of IRA telling you you're going to get bombed.
by Darenjo » Sun Nov 06, 2011 12:40 pm
by Hiriaurtung Arororugul » Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:35 pm
by Geilinor » Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:25 pm
Dizyntk wrote:Antartica55 wrote:
Keep in mind that correspondants are not military trained and are incapable of providing the same protection and saftey for themselves as a trained soldier could
"Then I would suggest that they avoid areas and situations that could get them killed. It is no different if you or I waltzed up to the front lines of a battle. If you think that we would be afforded special protection, then I suggest that you think a little harder."
by Geilinor » Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:28 pm
by Imperial Lyrdion » Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:01 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:55 pm
by Connopolis » Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:00 pm
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:59 pm
by Damanucus » Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:45 pm
Connopolis wrote:I apologize profusely for the impromptu submittal of this, and will contact the author, suggesting he redrafts the proposal and that he supports any potential repeals. However, to be fair, this resolution wasn't touched for about a month and a half until the author's final submittal. I'll take the blame for the loophole, as that was an erroneous revision on my part.
Yours in shame,
by Ifrayn » Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:02 pm
by Libraria and Ausitoria » Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:22 am
Ifrayn wrote:The terminology needs changed for it to be acceptable. "Multi-national" conflict is not expansive enough. What about civil wars? Those are single countries warring within each other? Are reporters on those not be protected either?
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement