NATION

PASSWORD

[Passed] Repeal "Protect War Correspondents"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
The Black Hat Guy
Diplomat
 
Posts: 952
Founded: Feb 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Black Hat Guy » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:00 am

Against. Sorry, but I think that a reasonable good faith interpretation of this resolution eliminates many of your complaints, and in any case I'm not certain enough that a replacement will be passed that I'm willing to forsake the current resolution.

User avatar
Kahanistan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1646
Founded: May 30, 2005
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Kahanistan » Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:43 pm

Ambassador Al-Shakur shook his head. "We can't trust rogue nations to follow a good faith interpretation, especially since this resolution is so controversial even among those who support a free press. Rogue nations will take full advantage of the fourth clause to deny entry to journalists who want the truth. That goes double if, as in our case, many of our antagonists are not even WA members. They will deny our journalists entry, or deny them protection, execute them as spies. This resolution explicitly allows nations to do this to war correspondents, and must be replaced with one that actually provides protection."

User avatar
The Saint James Islands
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1322
Founded: May 22, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Saint James Islands » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:33 pm

For future reference to vote campaigners (Douria included, in this case), I'll leave this little snippet from the Charter of the Democratic Socialist Assembly:
Article II, Section II, Subsection V: The World Assembly Delegate

Clause VIII. The World Assembly Delegate shall cast a symbolic vote in the World Assembly on all resolutions which reflects the preferences and opinions of a simple majority of World Assembly-member Residents that voted on the resolutions; however the World Assembly Delegate may publicly issue a dissenting opinion as to why they disagree with the majority of the DSA’s World Assembly members.

My vote is therefore bound to reflect the majority of residents of the DSA and by a 33-2 margin, it is bound to be AGAINST this resolution. I cannot possibly support it in good faith with my duties as Delegate or in my own personal conscience. For that, my apologies to Douria.
Classical republican, environmental student
Pro: Parliamentarism, civic virtue, positive liberty, soft Euroscepticism, the scientific method, facts
Anti: Presidentialism, authoritarianism, corruption, populism, hard Euroscepticism, misinformation
IC posts made by this nation are non-canonical.
This nation does not reflect my actual political views.
Do not use orally after using rectally.
Guilherme Magalhães
Senator for Ilhas de Santiago Ocidentais
Staunchly independent
[23:53] <StJames> ^fake news^

The death of the West will not be a homicide, but a suicide.

User avatar
Mosktopia
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Oct 26, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Mosktopia » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:55 pm

I am troubled by the fact that this is the second proposal in a row where a significant margin of the popular vote is being outdone by large delegacies. As of now, the vote stands at 3,385 FOR to 3,046 AGAINST (53% to 47%). But the popular vote among individual nations is 1,012 FOR to 1,408 AGAINST (42% to 58%).

A similar trend was observed in the latest On Abortion repeal, where a majority of individual nations supported repeal but the delegate votes swung the balance. It makes me feel like the WA has a serious problem: we're hardly a democracy when the popular vote is consistently being overruled by enough sufficiently-large delegacies.

Lithonia wrote:Although I am sad to see this proposal doing so well, I admit that its current success is proof of the great diplomatic ability of the Cowardly Pacifists.

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:With all due respect to the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, this has to be one of the most pointless proposals ever brought before this assembly.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:00 pm

Mosktopia wrote:I am troubled by the fact that this is the second proposal in a row where a significant margin of the popular vote is being outdone by large delegacies. As of now, the vote stands at 3,385 FOR to 3,046 AGAINST (53% to 47%). But the popular vote among individual nations is 1,012 FOR to 1,408 AGAINST (42% to 58%).

A similar trend was observed in the latest On Abortion repeal, where a majority of individual nations supported repeal but the delegate votes swung the balance. It makes me feel like the WA has a serious problem: we're hardly a democracy when the popular vote is consistently being overruled by enough sufficiently-large delegacies.

OOC: That's hardly a new trend. It has been observed many times in the past: I think GR used to keep some kind of log of such votes, and I seem to recall L&E doing so before. So far as I know, when admin has commented, they've never indicated a willingness to change the voting mechanics, though.

User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:39 pm

We may yet see that change. I've been watching the trends. When Cerb voted against early(thanks alot by the way), the nay votes started to pour in. As the vote started to get closer, the nay votes began to slow up. Now that the "for" vote is winning, the individual "for" votes are coming in faster than the nays.

If anything this really punches a hole in all the times I've tried to argue in private that the average voters aren't lemmings. I still don't believe they are, but I don't think I can honestly argue the point anymore and not be laughed out of the room.
Last edited by The Dourian Embassy on Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Pacifist Chipmunks
Attaché
 
Posts: 95
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Pacifist Chipmunks » Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:48 pm

Mosktopia wrote:A similar trend was observed in the latest On Abortion repeal, where a majority of individual nations supported repeal but the delegate votes swung the balance. It makes me feel like the WA has a serious problem: we're hardly a democracy when the popular vote is consistently being overruled by enough sufficiently-large delegacies.

Meh, given that we've voted against both proposals we are not that troubled by it! ;)

-BH

OOC: Perhaps it's because I'm a Yankee, but the idea of blocks of voting having a hand in determining things instead of direct popular vote doesn't trouble me much. In the game, for one thing, I see delegate votes as grounding the WA proposal-writing game in the regional role-play game. I personally think that's a good thing.
-Bombous Hecklesprecht
PC WA Office - Chief Spokesmunk

OOC: Farewell! It's been fun nostalgia, but RL awaits.

User avatar
Dai Coon Ree
Diplomat
 
Posts: 511
Founded: Sep 25, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Dai Coon Ree » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:21 pm

Kahanistan wrote:Ambassador Al-Shakur shook his head. "We can't trust rogue nations to follow a good faith interpretation, especially since this resolution is so controversial even among those who support a free press. Rogue nations will take full advantage of the fourth clause to deny entry to journalists who want the truth. That goes double if, as in our case, many of our antagonists are not even WA members. They will deny our journalists entry, or deny them protection, execute them as spies. This resolution explicitly allows nations to do this to war correspondents, and must be replaced with one that actually provides protection."



*Ambassador Elim Gla'Semue raises with a smile after hearing this from his noble colleque*

I agree to a certain point but I belive my colleque is mislead here. First of all the term "Roque Nation" startles me as this is such a loosly used term for everyone not being like yourself in many ways. Second we should bear in mind that WAR is not a Teaparty you report about in any shaddy newsmagazine and that WAR is a dangerous thing. Thirdly I like to ask what would "Protection" mean in light of military strategies being revealed by a nosy Corrospondent? Is this already spying? Does the "PRESS" Card equal a "Card Blanche" to stick your nose in whatever you like to stick it in? In all honesty this whole "Protect War Corrospondents" thing was a hoax from its very beginning. I voted FOR the thing to be empowered at first and voted AGAINST this silly Repeal, now I am done with it. Thank you for listening Members of this noble Gremium.

*He sits down looking over some new messages*
"The true Masters duty is to make sure his Apprentice will become better than him..."
DEFCON: 5
Proud Member of The Coalition of Omniversal Dominance
Member of The Capitalist League/President of the Assembly
IATA Member

Class C: Tier 0, Type VII, Galactic Power
Reading FACTBOOKS is good for your brain and some people put lots of effort into theirs!

User avatar
Fantoche
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 22
Founded: Sep 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Fantoche » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:55 pm

Fantoche supports this repeal. I concur with many of the points raised. In regard to GA#170:

War Correspondent as an employed individual that relays information in regards to multi-national conflict to a third party with the intent of making this information available to the public.


Although another resolution could cover other conflicts, I believe this resolution missed an opportunity here by excluding correspondents covering civil wars and revolutions.


Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of confiscating their equipment without justification, wounding the individual, or executing them without adequate reasoning. Should a militant fail to comply, both the individual, and the host member-state of the individual shall be held accountable.


Although clause 1 gives examples that are uncontroversial, the actual requirement is that militants not interact with the intent of stymieing actions; the clause doesn't distinguish between justified interactions and unjustified interactions. It's also disconcerting that execution without adequate reasoning, rather than execution in general, by militants is used as an example of a violation of the clause. "Militant" calls to mind, for me at least, someone more akin to a partisan or irregular, so I would have preferred the term soldier to be used. A country can't necessarily be expected to be able to control and be responsible for the actions of independent armed groups. In addition, if country A invades country B and country A's militants indiscriminately execute war correspondents, is country A or B accountable? Clause 1 says "host country", which would indicate country B, but country A's forces are the ones violating clause 1.


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.


I would prefer expulsion, or only exempting the country from accountability if the person is harmed, rather than saying that militants can interfere with the correspondent however they wish simply because the individual entered illegally.


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


I agree with the repeal; an individual should not be able to spy on one side as a war correspondent in order to escape the consequences for espionage. On the other hand, however, I also think that a war correspondent should be able to, say, help an injured soldier without losing their protections for the duration of the conflict. On a related note, this is also a concern if the correspondent is from the nation he or she is covering, as the individual could be exposed to regular reprisals from militants who want to stymie the correspondent's reporting.


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.


I agree with the repeal here as well; the clause is vague. Although a good faith interpretation of "compromising the war effort" limits the issue, there are certainly nations that would abuse this in general, and even reasonable nations could be tempted when facing defeat or consistently negative coverage. The use of persecution in place of prosecution is also an issue. I'm concerned that the correspondent's home nation is subject to "persecution" by the "afflicted" nation; similar to my objection to clause 1, I don't think a country should necessarily be held accountable simply because the individual is from there.

User avatar
Controlitia WA
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Mar 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Controlitia WA » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:24 pm

Kahanistan wrote:Ambassador Al-Shakur shook his head. "We can't trust rogue nations to follow a good faith interpretation, especially since this resolution is so controversial even among those who support a free press. Rogue nations will take full advantage of the fourth clause to deny entry to journalists who want the truth. That goes double if, as in our case, many of our antagonists are not even WA members. They will deny our journalists entry, or deny them protection, execute them as spies. This resolution explicitly allows nations to do this to war correspondents, and must be replaced with one that actually provides protection."


Emphasis mine. That's why I voted against this resolution. Out of the last 10 resolutions, 7 were repeals. I don't believe the other 3 were replacements, but perhaps those repeals were so far in the past that I no longer remember them. In my mind, Douria is playing the same game Kenny did/does, but in a different manner. Douria magnifies errors in the resolutions, and then gets them repealed. While my in-character Dictator thanks you, OOC I dislike these repeals, because without replacement it seems to run contrary to the replacement language used in the repeal.
Forced Gameplay is wrong.

User avatar
Kecoughtan Tribe
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Nov 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Vote Against This Bill

Postby Kecoughtan Tribe » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:47 pm

My fellow Delegates/WA Members, I urge you to vote AGAINST this proposal. The WA Membership is against you. They do NOT want this repealed, to repeal it would to be going against the people that have elected us to be Delegates. I urge you to vote no as I have and as the WA majority is voting.


Kecoughtan Tribe
WA Delegate for Hampton

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14542
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:55 pm

Kecoughtan Tribe wrote:My fellow Delegates/WA Members, I urge you to vote AGAINST this proposal. The WA Membership is against you. They do NOT want this repealed, to repeal it would to be going against the people that have elected us to be Delegates. I urge you to vote no as I have and as the WA majority is voting.


Kecoughtan Tribe
WA Delegate for Hampton


...What? Clearly, the citizens of the WA are for this, since the repeal is passing.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Kecoughtan Tribe
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Nov 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Kecoughtan Tribe » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:07 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Kecoughtan Tribe wrote:My fellow Delegates/WA Members, I urge you to vote AGAINST this proposal. The WA Membership is against you. They do NOT want this repealed, to repeal it would to be going against the people that have elected us to be Delegates. I urge you to vote no as I have and as the WA majority is voting.


Kecoughtan Tribe
WA Delegate for Hampton


...What? Clearly, the citizens of the WA are for this, since the repeal is passing.



No, it is passing because of the WA Delegates that have a lot of votes behind them. If you look at the Individual WA Member voting last time I looked it was like 1,356 FOR 1,749 Against. That is INDIVIDUAL people. You have Delegates that their 1 votes carries 435 people. This proposal is passing because of those people.

User avatar
Paranoidia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Nov 23, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Paranoidia » Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:48 am

Kecoughtan Tribe wrote:No, it is passing because of the WA Delegates that have a lot of votes behind them. If you look at the Individual WA Member voting last time I looked it was like 1,356 FOR 1,749 Against. That is INDIVIDUAL people. You have Delegates that their 1 votes carries 435 people. This proposal is passing because of those people.


Perhaps Delegates should be consulting the opinions of their region's members before casting their vote considering how much weight the vote of delegates from larger regions carry?

Now that there is the ability to have polls this would easy enough to do.

I personally have voted against this resolution and urge Delegates to ensure that their votes reflect the majority wishes of their regions.

Regards,
Paranoidia.

User avatar
Eireann Fae
Minister
 
Posts: 3422
Founded: Oct 15, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Eireann Fae » Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:13 am

(OOC: Just thought I should point out that on the voting page, delegates can see how their own region are voting - which ought to be enough to determine how they vote. If WA member nations want to have a say in which way their delegate votes, the should themselves vote and show up in the text like so:

Amongst Monkey Island residents, voting is currently 3-2 (60% For).

Your Regional WA Delegate, Mousebumples, has voted FOR this resolution.

Eireann Fae: FOR

Not sure if Mousey actually votes like this, but if I were a delegate, it'd certainly be the standard that I'd use.)

User avatar
Ancian
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1399
Founded: Jan 11, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Ancian » Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:32 am

I'm against.
Proud Governor of WZEU.
Economic Left/Right: -1.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18879
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:56 am

Paranoidia wrote:Perhaps Delegates should be consulting the opinions of their region's members before casting their vote considering how much weight the vote of delegates from larger regions carry?

Some of them do.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2361
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:01 am

Or perhaps nobody has any business dictating to regions and their delegates and nations how they run their own affairs. If nations feel that their delegates aren't listening to them, then move to a region where the delegate does.
Last edited by Bananaistan on Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
SverigeKins
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: Dec 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby SverigeKins » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:48 am

Why are we arguing the mechanics of voting and not the repeal up for vote?

:palm:

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14542
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:13 pm

Kecoughtan Tribe wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:
...What? Clearly, the citizens of the WA are for this, since the repeal is passing.



No, it is passing because of the WA Delegates that have a lot of votes behind them. If you look at the Individual WA Member voting last time I looked it was like 1,356 FOR 1,749 Against. That is INDIVIDUAL people. You have Delegates that their 1 votes carries 435 people. This proposal is passing because of those people.


If you do were not a delegate, and your delegate was voting counter to your belief, then you could simply unendorse your delegate and withdraw your weight from the voting power of the delegate. People who care would do the same. Simple as that.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
The Dourian Embassy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1547
Founded: Nov 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dourian Embassy » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:41 pm

You guy realize the gap between individual voters is only 150 or so now, right?
Treize Dreizehn, President of Douria.

cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

User avatar
Utymnano
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Dec 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Utymnano » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:17 pm

We believe your reasoning is solid. Utymnano votes FOR this repeal.

User avatar
Svetlaka
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Jan 30, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Svetlaka » Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:37 pm

having heard and read the act the svetlakian stands and says "i cannot in sound mind and moral standing, support a repeal of this act although i would suggest a revision. war corrospondants should be required to sign a agreement with their givernment stating that if they are captured and killed that their government cannot reasonably react to said action, as they are ment to be a neutral party" having said this he sits back down quietly and casts his vote against the repeal of this act

User avatar
Kahanistan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1646
Founded: May 30, 2005
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Kahanistan » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:02 pm

Svetlaka wrote:Having heard and read the act, the Svetlakian stands and says, "I cannot in sound mind and moral standing, support a repeal of this act, although I would suggest a revision. War correspondents should be required to sign an agreement with their government stating that if they are captured and killed that their government cannot reasonably react to said action, as they are meant to be a neutral party." Having said this, he sits back down quietly and casts his vote against the repeal of this act.


Ambassador Al-Shakur nodded. "My government is in complete agreement," he said. "But the veto-wielders will strike down any revised version of the resolution until the original is repealed... claim it's a contradiction between the original and the replacement. That is why Kahanistan supports a repeal, despite being a champion of journalistic freedom. We have no intention of letting the oppressive terrorist countries we have previously termed rogue nations run roughshod over our nation's journalists. And if a nation kidnaps our journalists, and our government identifies the kidnappers, it's a serious international incident... in one particular case we ended up at war with Parthia, one of the most powerful Gholgothic states."

User avatar
Svetlaka
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Jan 30, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Svetlaka » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:24 pm

having heard ambassador al-shakur's statement he replies thusly " if we could work on a revision of the original article we may be able to prevent the repeal all together" the svetlakian ambassador vladimir kazkinski then reclines slightly in his seat

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads