NationStates

this is the equiv lint of spies getting a free pass this must be voted down. I encourage everyone to vote against this resolution and as a contingency someone should draw up a repeal that can be immediately put to vote if this bill does pass. LIVE FREE OR DIE!

Among the other issues, the problem as I see it with this resolution is in the final clause.
It states 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."

In my opinion any war correspondent is likely to act in breach of this clause through their reporting. This is because whatever is reported will have effects on the way in which their home nation and their home nations populace acts regarding the parties involved in the war. This may not be obviously manifested, but for example if a nation is reported as having suffered a significant defeat this could damage trade between the correspondents home nation and the nation involved thus having knock-on effects throughout its economy.
This is without even taking into account spin put into the reporting that would make one side appear more or less favourable in this war.
This could make the immunity afforded to war correspondents invalid once their reporting has been made available to the public, as any negative changes in interactions between nations could be said to be compromising the war effort.

I recommend this is pulled for the grammar error and a revision of section 6.

ABHORRED that militants may terminate this individuals

Very poor grammar.

Also section six means that if even one news branch says a bad thing about one nation then that nation can then invade the homeland of the reporter regardless of whether that is the offcial stance of the homeland government or not!

This proposal is a great proposal: War correspondents have always had problems... I mean they wear a blue or black bullet-proof vest to signify who they are... but they need better protection. However, the proposal needs to be specific.

A war correspondent is one who reports on the war from the front lines. They MUST NOT be able to participate in combat, lest they expose themselves to fire from the enemy.

The correspondent must be from one of the two warring nations or at least aligned to one side. They cannot be in the middle, for they would be subject to attack from the warring nations.

Fortana wrote:I recommend this is pulled for the grammar error and a revision of section 6.

ABHORRED that militants may terminate this individuals

Very poor grammar.

Also section six means that if even one news branch says a bad thing about one nation then that nation can then invade the homeland of the reporter regardless of whether that is the offcial stance of the homeland government or not!

Even if the author requested pulling it (or it was illegal) we can't pull it once it goes up for vote.

I are as much grammar stickler as anybody else" but we vote should on content of resolution and instead not grammar correctiveness.

While this resolution is good in theory and certainly means well to protect free information, there are a few issues that render it problematic.

Much attention has already been given to the concept of a "third party" in a conflict. I presume this refers to an individual who is not a representative of a nation who is involved in the conflict. While some have expressed concern that this would allow for spies or mercenaries, the concern is Dranae is the opposite: this would NOT protect all journalists, it would only protect some.

There are many nations with nationalized media, either partially or fully managed by the state, such as the BBC in England or Al-Jazeera in Qatar. By the language of this bill, journalists from these countries would not be protected as they are an employee of the government and not "third parties" to the conflict in the way that a privately-held news station would be. Essentially this would protect SOME journalists, but still allow for broad categories of legitimate journalists to be subject to violence.

On the flip side, this bill would also allow protection for mercenary propagandists, as well as foreign interference in war reporting. So long as a person is gathering information intends to release said information to the "public" (another term that warrants clarification in this usage), they are protected. It is never stated that the information must be accurate, or cannot be classified. A reporter from a nation not at war would be protected if they publicly broadcast troop movements or launch codes, as long as they are publicly available. It is a bit hyperbolic, but allowed by the language of this bill.

The Republic of Dranae will not support this bill. While the purpose is noble, and the goals are to be applauded, the bill itself has a few too many holes as it is currently written to effectively protect legitimate journalists during wartime.

I support this resolution on the ground of human rights.

Dizyntk wrote:"Except that it does not protect any rights. All I need do is refuse to grant any permits to any so called correspondents and then my soldiers may legally pick them off at their leisure if they so choose."

"I don't know what you are talking about! This is a 'Significant' humans rights resolution, not a mild one. Despite the fact it covers an extremely small group of people and with very weak language, which seems to disqualify it for being legal under the brand of significant," the ambassador retorted while rolling his eyes.

Hicopland wrote:I are as much grammar stickler as anybody else" but we vote should on content of resolution and instead not grammar correctiveness.

Considering how grammatically incorrect your statement was, I'm hoping that you're being sarcastic. Having said that, considering that there has been at least one documented case of a grammatical error altering the intent of a proposal, I fail to see why we should not take grammatical errors into account when deciding our vote.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Most Clement Patriarch of Friginfanatica, God's Representative on Earth, His Eminence Archbishop Peter XIV,

To the Right Honourable Representatives of the World Assembly,

Greetings from our Most Holy Father and his Faithful in Friginfanatica:

We have read the proposal to Protect War Correspondents currently at vote in the General Assembly. While we honor the intention of protecting the innocent in war, we question the logic of giving correspondents particular privilege for the following reasons:

1.) It is well known that the sort of people who enjoy profiting from war by building sensationalism in their media are, as a general rule, a most deplorable sort of people. They love to stir up the masses against the righteous use of force and impel them to rebel against lawful government. Because of the moral depravity of these kinds of people, we denounce the drive to give them special protection not enjoyed by the common people in those areas experiencing war.

2.) It is generally agreed that the province of war belongs to the state and to the state alone. The Most Holy Father guides the hands of those entrusted with government beyond the scope of the average human being. Therefore, as war is purely within the power of the state and not the people, correspondence of warfare to the masses is not relevant and only leads to misunderstanding. For their own protection from anxiety caused by forces beyond their control, we anathematize all who spread news of war among the common people.

3.) It is the custom in many lands for the feudal lords of their various manors to control the flow of information among the peasantry. Likewise, many governments produce a state-run news service in order to demonstrate the proper interpretation of current events as ordained by the Most High. As Father of Friginfanatica, we deem both approaches valid and find that a free flow of war correspondence circumvents our Most Holy Right to interpret war efforts for our Flock. Many governments like ours would be in hearty agreement with this reasoning.

Therefore, we deem the proposal at vote Protect War Correspondents as contrary to the Will of God and of the lords and bishops of our land. We implore all like-minded nations to stand with us in opposing this heretical proposal and hereby excommunicate all who vote for it.

Blessings to those who hear and understand these words,

Amen

The "aye" votes on this are leading the "nays" by about 3 to 1. Didn't anyone remember that this body passed Resolution #122?

Sir William Hemsworth stands, smiling a little.

"It's nice to see this body propose a piece of legislation that should actually be regulated by this body. Actual international law. A firm aye, unless my region says otherwise."

He sits once more.

odds are this is gonna pass...but i am in full agreement that it needs to be repealed..and replaced

Jedi8246 wrote:Sir William Hemsworth stands, smiling a little.

"It's nice to see this body propose a piece of legislation that should actually be regulated by this body. Actual international law. A firm aye, unless my region says otherwise."

He sits once more.

Discoveria's representative to the General Assembly stands, sneering openly at Sir William Hemsworth.

"It's nice to see a representative to this assembly smugly give support for a badly written piece of legislation without bothering to justify the foolish judgement of his region, and therefore contributing nothing to the debate, much like my own statement here."

The representative sits once more.

Beskie votes yes

The Most Serene Republic of Kaskatenadze believes its a good intention this resolution, as is supportive of the protection of emissaries and people from other nationalities involved in a war conflict. However it believes this resolution should be voted against because it believes it shows some paradoxes and irregular aspects. As an example:

5) War correspondents may aid any belligerent during conflict; by doing so, their protection will be nullified until post-conflict, exclusive of self-defense.

The Most Serene Republic of Kaskatenadze does not agree with this expression. It believes that a resolution shouldnt allow war correspondents to aid any side, but rather, state that its prohibited, and if it happens, the protection would be nullified, in another grammatical sense.

Also, proposition 6) is abnormally subjective, as we cannot determine exactly what is to "compromise war effort"

We say no. Regards, cossack Nikoloz Basilashvili, ambassador of The Most Serene Republic of Kaskatenadze.

I like this resolution. The only things that I would have liked clarified are the status of imbedded reporters (who generally wear military uniforms and work in close proximity of soldiers) and the status of a reporter if they are armed.

Clause 5 is definitely a have your cake and eat it too clause. I would think that a neutral reporter taking up arms in a conflict would have repercussions beyond being labelled as an enemy combatant, with criminal charges for having abused their international protections, and permanently losing their international media credentials. For example: if a member of a NGO, providing emergency aid to refuges, went Rambo they are not only endangering themselves but every other member of an NGO operating in that combat zone, because combatants can no longer treat NGO's as non-combatants.

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:<snip> Didn't anyone remember that this body passed Resolution #122?

But surely the experienced ambassador of TEK is aware of the flaw in that legislation? I quote:

RECOMMENDS that national governments take the findings of their national offices seriously, ...

Given the usual condition of most national offices of most governments, plus the frequent generosity of the more well-endowed nations in buying free drinks for the entire clientele of the Strangers Bar, I can only say, we brought it on ourselves.

-- Dicey Reilly, Wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille.

Clause five isn't just having your cake and eating it too. It is insanity.

HOW is a military force supposed to tell whether a war correspondent is with OPFOR or not? Wait until the war correspondent starts shooting? Psionic brainwaves? Does a war correspondent who isn't an enemy have to wear bright pink clothing? No. This resolution makes all war correspondents are a legitimate target. If they're near the enemy, they're likely part of the enemy. A military force cannot go and ask. Horrid resolution and someone should repeal it ASAP.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Glen-Rhodes maintains that war correspondents forfeit neutrality and the protections offered to them the moment they become belligerents in the conflict. Their status as neutral correspondents will not be returned to them after the conflict. Should they be captured, they will be considered unlawful combatants and not granted prisoner of war status. This is in line with customary international law regarding war. This resolution shows a clear lack of competence on the part of all delegations involved, including those delegations that cast their votes in favor. The World Assembly should repeal this nonsense law immediately.

- Dr. B. Castro