[PASSED] Protect War Correspondents

[Soluna]

War correspondents know exactly what they're getting into!

What if a nuclear weapon was unexpectedly set off? This proposal would be as useless as their radiated ashes!

The soldiers should protect them as much as they try to avoid shooting the enemies' civilians.....anything more is completely distracting from their ultimate goal.

We do not endorse this proposal....but if it happens to pass, Soluna will comply; assuming they do so as well. Make no mistake, we will halt their activities upon anything we deem compromising!

....anything....

:The ambassador walks away backwards, staring and pointing at the proposal's authors.:

[Moronist Decisions]

This appears to be impractical. Nice sentiment, but we don't think host nations should be held accountable for militants. Against.

[Connopolis]

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,

[Lemon Land]

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,

[Connopolis]

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,

God forbid, if a nation is held responsible for the individuals they employ to represent their military influence on the national stage... In regards to your second question; all nations must enforce this resolution (as well as any resolution passed by this body). How nations go about it is up to them, but ultimately, military professionals must know that they cannot kill war correspondents just as they must know that they cannot torture captured militants.

Yours,

[Lemon Land]

The first question was of a bit more rhetorical manner. Militants are, by definition, not the part of nation's military. Therefore, how can a nation enforce and fully implement this resolution if, hypothetically, it is in the state of civil war and fighting rebels? Will it be held responsible for the actions of rebels afterwards?

Yours,

[Damanucus]

I wish to turn the resolution writers' focus temporarily to a few unanswered questions regarding the resolution that I would like answered, if possible.

[Ziptron]

War correspondents truly do provide a service for society at great risk to themselves, and deserve protection. This proposal, however, doesn't protect them.

The reason it doesn't is that the last three clauses render the proposal useless. The very nature of war itself urges nations at war to seal their borders. This is especially true in cases where a regime is perpetrating atrocities on its own citizens. To keep the world informed, war correspondents almost always must find ways to sneak into war zones to do their work and inform the world. Clause number 4 strips them of protection if they do this.

The next clause removes their protection if they so much as drag an injured soldier out of the line of fire, or even offer him a sip of water.

The final clause could be interpreted the same way.

For those reasons, this is a proposal that says it wants to do something good, but is so compromised by internal contradictions that it does nothing.

[Lordieth]

Could the OP please edit the topic title to match the name of the resolution, and notify that this is at vote, so it can be stickied?

The thread title should be; '[AT VOTE] Protect War Correspondents'. The topic title is confusing.

On a slightly different note, I actually received two telegrams about approving this when it was a proposal, one from Antartica55, and another from The Ravonic States. One was enough.

Edit; Nevermind, this appears to be an entirely different resolution. Confusing.

[Weed]

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,

That removes their protection after the damage is done, as you've acknowledged. You can put a spy on trial after he's revealed the location of all your troops if it makes you feel better. But it does very little to undo the loss you have just suffered.

[CHEVLANDIA]

War correspondents that abuse their immunity by compromising the war effort in favor of any participating party shall have their immunity relinquished

Seems to me that this leaves war correspondents open to losing their immunity simply by virtue of doing their job. The only way not to leak information that may compromise the war effort is to only relate information that is so vague as to be completely non-informative. Any information regarding location, size, and actions of the military forces could potentially affect enemy actions and be construed as compromising the war effort. If this behavior of the clause wasn't intended, it should be changed to be more specific as to what is meant by "compromising the war effort."

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.

And this right here defangs the whole resolution. No nation is going to voluntarily allow war correspondents into their country accompanying the opposing military forces, and as another member pointed out, sealing the borders is a common practice, which means any war correspondent that accompanies an invasion force or even enters the country is automatically forfeiting their status. The only sure way for a war correspondent to retain their immunity is to shuffle around behind the front lines in the civilian areas, which defeats the purpose of having a war correspondent in the first place.

There's too many internal contradictions for me to vote yes on this.

[Discoveria]

The Utopian Commonwealth of Discoveria,

NOTING the disregard for personal safety shown by individuals who voluntarily choose to enter war zones in a non-combatant role,

UNCONVINCED that these individuals require protection by a resolution of the General Assembly,

DISPUTING the benefits of war correspondence for all participating parties,

REALISING that the definition of a 'War Correspondent' may be applied to all members of a nation's military, by giving all soldiers an additional responsibility to document their actions in combat with the intent of making this information available to public inquiry after said combat,

NOTING also that the omission of 'resolves' in the sentence "The World Assembly, therefore" technically renders this resolution completely useless,

The Utopian Commonwealth, therefore:

1) RESOLVES that all of its soldiers shall be equipped with video camera equipment and have their job descriptions amended to have them classified as 'War Correspondents',

2) RESOLVES to define its own "standard immigration policies" to facilitate the entry of its war correspondents into hostile nations,

3) INTENDS to move its war correspondents into position near military installations in hostile countries, under the protection of the proposed resolution, until they are ready to initiate belligerence,

4) CHALLENGES the authors of the resolution at vote to explain how this scenario would be prevented under the current wording of the proposed resolution.

[Funky Town]

It is way to general. they can kill them if they have a "good reason" thats funny.

[Greto]

We find that section 4 of the resolution at vote completely makes it an useless resolution that in actuality offers no protection to the Correspondent. Seeing that the nation that he/she is trying to enter must have checked they're papers to be responsible for enforcing the resolution, as such we cannot support this resolution with section 4 in it.

[Darenjo]

OOC: The only thing that gets to me about this one is the one requiring war correspondents to use proper immigration channels. Take, for example, RL Syria (arguably in a state of civil war in some areas), which has banned foreign media in order to stifle stories of the Syrian Uprising. Wouldn't it be better, freedom of information-wise, if, in certain situations, war correspondents didn't have to use proper immigration channels?

I realize I wasn't here during drafting, which is my fault. So I'm sorry for not suggesting this before. I'm just going to have to think about this one.

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

Opposed. War correspondents do not deserve protections beyond those given to any other journalist.




Besides, they often report things that they had no business reporting.....

[Geilinor]

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."

You or I are not news reporters. War correspondents provide important news to the public.

[Geilinor]

War correspondents according to the resolution's definition would include all civilians, it really needs to specify correspondents working for news agencies, not random people providing information to any third party.

[Imperial Lyrdion]

This resolution does nothing to advance any protection for members of the press that does not already exist. Most member nations will simply outlaw (deny access) to the free press so that any protections are null and void (as each nation may or may not see fit). Futhermore, nothing is stated or can be enforced regarding exactly HOW nations/individuals will be "held accountable" and what punishment might be meted out. Personally, I believe the press should have full access to cover anything they wish. BUT....when anyone goes into a war-zone, it is common knowledge that all is fair in love and war and that all are potential targets. Imperial Lyrdion cannot support this resolution.

[Glen-Rhodes]

1. This resolution makes no grammatical sense. "The World Assembly therefore militants are prohibited from interacting..."

2. The formatting is horrible and not conducive to better understanding the content.

3. This resolution contains a massive loophole in the most important article.

4. Clearly, two months of writing was not enough.

Glen-Rhodes votes against and calls for a repeal should it pass. Furthermore, granting by law the ability of a correspondent to engage in military action is absolutely ridiculous and shows a clear lack of understanding regarding the laws of war.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Connopolis]

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,

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

We shall change our mission's vote against this resolution after reviewing the arguments on this thread.

[Damanucus]

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,

Duly noted. I shall try and make things easy by voting against the resolution; I suggest everyone else do the same, simply to ease on having to repeal this resolution. (I just hope that idea works.)

[Ifrayn]

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?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We voted against this the moment we re-read the proposal. Besides the grammatical errors, formatting, and loopholes of anybody able to pass laws to provide justification and adequate reasoning and nations able forbidding entrance, third parties should also be defined: who is going inform these Correspondents stuff and refrain from putting them in war zones? Logically, if third party is mentioned, it doesn't include the militants, who would be the first or second party. Therefore we oppose this proposal and will support a repeal if it gets passed.

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?

Hear hear!