Page 1 of 3

[Passed] Repeal "Protect War Correspondents"

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:06 pm
by The Dourian Embassy
Original Resolution: http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... /start=169

The World Assembly,

Aware of the intent of "Protect War Correspondents"(GA#170),

Deploring however, that GA#170 fails in many regards to afford adequate protections to war correspondents,

Accepting that clause one of GA#170 states that militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents "with the intent of stymieing their actions", regardless of what those actions are, and knowing that such prohibitions are overly burdensome to enforce,

Understanding that clause one also states that member states "shall be held accountable" for the behavior of individual militants towards war correspondents, without any regard for the intent or actions of those member states in attempting to limit behavior that violates the resolution,

Noting that clause four states: "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,"

Believing that nations in a state of belligerence often have differing views on the existence and position of borders between them and that such differences can result in immigration policies that are impossible to properly adhere to, thus limiting the extent of the protections supposedly afforded,

Further believing that a nation can deny access to their territory through immigration policies that discriminate against war correspondents, which seriously reduces GA#170's effectiveness,

Further noting that clause five declares: "War correspondents may aid any belligerent during conflict; by doing so, their protection will be nullified until post-conflict, exclusive of self-defense,"

Regretting that clause five would allow war correspondents to engage in espionage, only losing their protections after gathering the information and aiding a particular side of the conflict successfully,

Deducing that clause six is both vague and poorly worded, using the phrase "compromising the war effort" to describe a situation in which war correspondents would have their "immunity relinquished", and thus be "subject to persecution by the afflicted nation", which is problematic for the following reasons:

* "Compromising the war effort" is a vague catch-all term which can be applied to literally any reporting done by a war correspondent that portrays a nation in a negative manner,

* "Relinquished" describes a process of voluntary action, rather than what should be an involuntary action such as "nullified" which was used in clause five,

* "Persecution" is an entirely inappropriate term for reprisal in a war zone against those who, as the clause was likely intended to outline, use the protections afforded by the resolution to assist another nation in their war efforts,

Concluding, as the original authoring nation did, that the myriad of flaws present in this resolution necessitate its repeal,

Hereby repeals "Protect War Correspondents"(GA#170).

Co-Authored by Venico.


So anyway. I contacted Abacathea to work on a replacement for this here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=278984.

Furthermore, the original author has called for this to be repealed and replaced here: viewtopic.php?p=7563533#p7563533

As it is quite long, I imagine we've missed a error or problem somewhere. Your constructive criticism is welcome.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:16 pm
by The Dark Star Republic
OOC: Could you please link to the actual resolution in your OP? The thread you've linked to doesn't include the original resolution text in its OP, which is confusing. Also, have you considered consulting the co-author?

Though I am automatically opposed to this because of your silly non-use of spaces before brackets and inclusion of the word 'Cognizant', I will endeavour to give some comments anyway when I have more time.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:36 pm
by The Dourian Embassy
OOC: What do you have against "cognizant" anyway?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:38 pm
by The Dark Star Republic
The Dourian Embassy wrote:What do you have against "cognizant" anyway?

OOC: I just, I don't know, I think the word is overused. There's nothing wrong with 'Aware'.

But I was mostly joking. :)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:50 pm
by The Dourian Embassy
OOC: Oh I know, I vaguely remembered you railing against it in some other thread once and was genuinely curious. ;)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:34 am
by The Dourian Embassy
Does anyone have some input on this piece?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:36 am
by Separatist Peoples
Another top-notch Dourian repeal. I wish I had more to comment on, ambassador, but I find myself in agreement with the text.

A couple stylistic things that can be, more or less, ignored if you so choose:

I don't like the use of the word "bemoaned". It sounds like the WA is whining, and, while its an accurate description, we must keep up appearances. Something simple, like "concerned" would do.

Your bulleted list at the bottom doesn't look terribly...well, bulleted. Some formatting adjustment wouldn't go amiss.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:26 pm
by The Dourian Embassy
I really hate using formatting when I don't need to. It always bothers me in other resolutions when they use different formatting for dang near everything.

As for bemoaning, yeah, I cringe a little when I use it, but since I tend to use ing's, it's one of the few words that works(concerning for example, wouldn't work).

I switched some stuff around and managed to excise "bemoaning" and "cognizant". You're welcome. I'm submitting now, and if no serious objections are raised, I'll take it to quorum in about 24 hours.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 8:04 pm
by Sciongrad
I've very much supportive of a repeal of this resolution, but I have one minor issue.

Noting that clause four states: "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,"

Believing that nations in a state of belligerence often have differing views on the existence and position of borders between them and that such differences can result in immigration policies that are impossible to properly adhere to, thus limiting the extent of the protections supposedly afforded,


I find this line of reasoning very weak. War correspondents should be exempted from a nation's immigration procedures because it may be impossible to determine one's borders during war? In the rare event that a territorial dispute makes immigration logistically impossible, then how would this be resolved without exempting war correspondents from immigration procedures? Being unable to manage one's immigration policy isn't something the World Assembly should be responsible for. I would prefer this argument be dropped, but I will probably vote for this either way.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:56 am
by The Dourian Embassy
That isn't the point. The point was that the resolution shouldn't be tying War Correspondent's protection to immigration policy in the first place. There is literally no need to mention it. If a nation wants to eject war correspondents for immigration violations that's a right they oughta have, but it should not be about entry.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:15 pm
by Aligned Planets
The Dourian Embassy wrote:Deploring however, that GA#170 fails in many regards to afford adequate protections to war correspondents

Just on a grammatical point, would the comma following however not be redundant?

That aside, I quite like this. Neat, well explained and with the support of the original author.

Supported.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:16 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Aligned Planets wrote:
The Dourian Embassy wrote:Deploring however, that GA#170 fails in many regards to afford adequate protections to war correspondents

Just on a grammatical point, would the comma following however not be redundant?

That aside, I quite like this. Neat, well explained and with the support of the original author.

Supported.


I actually think that it needs a comma after the word Deploring to be grammatically correct.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:19 pm
by The Dourian Embassy
It does. *grumbles*

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:20 pm
by Abacathea
The Dourian Embassy wrote:It does. *grumbles*

FAIL!

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:02 pm
by Aligned Planets
Abacathea wrote:
The Dourian Embassy wrote:It does. *grumbles*

FAIL!


I think I started on a false premise anyway. I'm now wondering if the text shouldn't read:

Deploring, however, that GA#170 fails in many regards to afford adequate protections to war correspondents

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:20 pm
by Sciongrad
The Dourian Embassy wrote:That isn't the point. The point was that the resolution shouldn't be tying War Correspondent's protection to immigration policy in the first place. There is literally no need to mention it. If a nation wants to eject war correspondents for immigration violations that's a right they oughta have, but it should not be about entry.


The existence of the clause in the original resolution is redundant - whether it was there or not has no impact on immigration policy. With it, nations can freely determine their immigration policy towards war correspondents, and without it, nations can still freely determine their immigration policy. Therefore, my point is that the argument in the repeal is weak because repealing the resolution won't resolve the admittedly dubious issue that the clause in question discusses because the clause in the original doesn't do anything substantive. I'll still support the repeal, as I don't like the target resolution very much, but I would strongly suggest that you consider removing those clauses.

Either way, best of luck your Excellency. We're always glad to see Dourian repeal efforts.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:57 pm
by The Dourian Embassy
This is going to vote tonight, so... bumpity bump.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:31 am
by The Dark Star Republic
"Curious. Your repeals are normally so successful early on; this one, seems very close. Is it the length of the argument, or the argument itself, that's not proving convincing?"

PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:44 am
by Eist
I hold repeals to a higher standard than the original resolutions, and, simply, this does not meet those standards. While there is at least one glaring grammatical error, the prose is simply horrific and not formatted to the standard set by the UN (or WA). Furthermore, this is overly picky for the sake of pickiness against a pretty decent resolution. Dourian, if you have to repeal resolutions all the time, I suggest you pick from the sea of sub-standard resolutions out there. AGAINST

PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:49 am
by Kahanistan
"I have serious issues with clause four, that cannot be resolved until a repeal," said the Kahanistanian Ambassador. "It has nothing to do with determining national borders, it allows nations to, for example, deny a news crew entry into the country and if they enter anyway they lose all international protection. Let's say a repressive regime is hiding war atrocities and executes a KNN news crew, our government would have no recourse under the present resolution."

PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:16 am
by Hakio
I disagree with the repeal. The reasons supporting a full repeal of the law are not strong enough in my opinion.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:40 am
by Separatist Peoples
Kahanistan wrote:"I have serious issues with clause four, that cannot be resolved until a repeal," saiid the Kahanistanian Ambassador. "It has nothing to do with determining national borders, it allows nations to, for example, deny a news crew entry into the country and if they enter anyway they lose all international protection. Let's say a repressive regime is hiding war atrocities and executes a KNN news crew, our government would have no recourse under the present resolution."


Sure you do. Don't send in correspondents. Pretty simple.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:12 am
by Kahanistan
Kahanistanian Ambassador Nassif al-Shakur sneered at the Separatist People's ambassador. "I don't know what sort of system they have in your country, but in Kahanistan a free press is sacred. It calls attention to the injustices of governments and dissuades the less scrupulous from abusing the human rights of the people. We've had journalists, thousands every year, disappear... come back in body bags... come back with signs of obvious torture, often with hands and more cut off to impede identification. It's gotten so bad that good investigative human rights journalists here are being paid more than engineers and doctors and nuclear physicists, for the risks. Let's just say the Kahanistanian Journalists' Association provides the loonies at New Masada University Medical Centre with ongoing training in treating injuries we otherwise rarely see even in wartime. We would dishonour their memories and sacrifices if we did not provide war correspondents with international legal protection to enter war zones."

PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:14 am
by Pacifist Chipmunks
We voted against, as we are generally unconvinced by the arguments.

-Bombous Hecklesprecht

PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:44 am
by Jacobios
I vote completely against this Bill. As a nation that supports journalism and the right to a free press, we must ensure that our journalists are granted protection wherever they are in the world.

Prime Minister of Jacobios