NationStates

Kenmoria wrote:

Foril wrote:
Many WA nations are dictatorships, which means that journalist protection in those countries are often low or nonexistent. Furthermore, even if only one nation benefits from this, I argue that it’ll still have a positive effect.

Furthermore, the WA resolution here (viewtopic.php?p=35834891#p35834891/) lists what the “WA definition” of espionage is, and nations cannot apply their own twisted definition without violating that.

I hope this answers your concerns, otherwise let me know and I’ll try and go further in depth.

(OOC: Any definitions in GA resolutions apply to that resolution only. I agree with the idea that this proposal provides benefits to journalists in nations that may not have freedom of the press, to the extent allowed by previous legislation. However, I feel as though it would be possible for this proposal to further increase freedom of the press.)

Upon further reading, you are right. I apologise.

However, I did find another point: the WA has a Judiciary Committee to determine compliance, and nations which use loopholes to skirt "existing World Assembly law" is exercising non-compliance according to this. Therefore, my point still stands: a nation which attempts to use a loophole to skirt this resolution would still be exercising non-compliance.

Foril wrote:However, I did find another point: the WA has a Judiciary Committee to determine compliance, and nations which use loopholes to skirt "existing World Assembly law" is exercising non-compliance according to this. Therefore, my point still stands: a nation which attempts to use a loophole to skirt this resolution would still be exercising non-compliance.

It's not so much of a "loophole" as it is that you have explicitly denied legal protections to journalists in any situation that their reporting could result in "jeopardisation of military efforts." This means most things that would be reported on, and there was literally no reason to do this.

Since you dodged my criticism, I'll repost it:

Refuge Isle wrote:So, in my mind, journalism is necessary to tell people about what's happening. The most important pieces of information in those circumstances are going to be the ones that indicate wrongdoing or report threats to civilian lives and such. Journalism in the category of reporting "wrongdoing and threats to civilian lives" is also going to be in the category of "jeopardisation of military efforts" if a warring government feels like their casual atrocities being reported creates a vulnerability in their war operations. If I were a totalitarian regime trying to carry out a genocide, I don't think I'd be concerned by this resolution, because I can still call on a vague argument about military goals to lock out reporters.

Maowi wrote:"A state's ability to carry out wartime journalists' jobs for them is irrelevant. Maybe I'm wrong, but I highly doubt the information reported via state-regulated channels will be the same as that reported by independent journalists. The proposal in question leaves ample room for reasonably preventing journalists from getting themselves into situations of imminent danger."

"You're expecting journalists to report falsehoods and nonsense? And you consider that a good thing?"

Maowi wrote:"I myself don't see anything in the proposal barring the Imperium from imposing limits to journalists' "wandering," nor does it prohibit states at any point from providing them with military protection."

"Have you read it? Do you understand what the term 'freedom of movement' means? I'm not concerned that it prohibits us from doing so, I am concerned, that because of their 'freedom of movement', it will become impossible to protect them, and thus put Imperial soldiers at risk due to idiot civilians deciding that they would use their 'freedom of movement' to leave secure areas. Civilians have no place on a battlefield in the first place, if they cannot be removed from it, they should absolutely not be left to wander about it unprotected, or should they have universal fiat to march up to the enemy encampment and chat with the enemy. I do not understand what is controversial about that."

Curiously any schmuck wearing visible press identification and taking a few pictures with the intent of sending them to the newspaper would be now a wartime journalist >_> Even when they wouldn't be a member of the press.

I must say that this uses rather imprecise language ("weapons", "espionage") and some of the definitions are actually unhelpful (e.g. the definition of the warzone).

It's a good effort, but I won't be supporting it as long as those issues are present.

My response to the comments above:

This isn’t perfect, I know. However, I believe that it is adequate protection. If you believe that, vote for it. If you don’t believe that, vote against it. If it does not pass, I will make changes, make sure everyone is satisfied, and re-submit.

Foril wrote:Many WA nations are dictatorships, which means that journalist protection in those countries are often low or nonexistent.

OOC: Well not necessarily journalists' protections so much as journalists' freedoms...

Foril wrote:Therefore, my point still stands: a nation which attempts to use a loophole to skirt this resolution would still be exercising non-compliance.

Creative compliance means obeying the letter of the law, not whatever unspelled-out thoughts the writer had when writing the law. Our characters are not mindreaders (most of them anywway), the GA resolutions don't come with a how-to guide (most of them anyway), so the literal text is what most nations are going to be applying, especially if they don't like the contents much, as that's the bare minimum the Wine And Crouton Conference and whatever the other one was, is concerned about. So basically, if you want uncooperating but compliant nations to do something, you need to spell it out and not leave obvious loopholes. You have left obvious loopholes, so don't blame others for your mistakes.

Tinfect wrote:*snip*

IC: Linda was catching up on her text messages on her phone, mostly paying only half attention to the discussion, when her phone beeped for a new message, causing her to swear and quickly silence it, before checking the message. She read it several times and looked around bewildered, but after receiving another message from the same number - a hidden one - telling her to hurry up, she finally got up from her place and went to the militant lunatic nation's desk.

"Excuse me, but are you Jasot? Someone named Sunset wanted me to tell you to turn on your..." she checked her phone again to make sure she got the strange words right, "tactical network? Something like that. Oh and to do so to see where they want to meet you as soon as you're free. I'm really sorry, I have no idea how they've gotten ahold of my number, or why they didn't message you directly, but I assume the name says something to you?"

I cannot support this act.

A journalist reporting on a war does not mean that they should be placing themselves in harms way. It is not the soldiers duty to figure out whether individuals caught in the midst of battle are journalists or not. If anything, the filming of our great military technology and tactics, without governmental consent, should be considered spying.

There are also no real protections against espionage, other than vague wording which would be retrospective and only IF the "journalist" were caught in the act of espionage.

Foril wrote:This isn’t perfect, I know. However, I believe that it is adequate protection.

The Government of South Pole City agrees with the need to protect journalists, but the text of this proposed resolution is not specific enough. Other governments have expressed doubts about the vague definitions of "weapons" and "espionage," and we'd like to add that a malicious interpretation of section 4c would give unscrupulous governments legal permission to murder any journalist as long as they claim the journalist got caught in the middle of active combat.

For these reasons, the Government of South Pole City will ABSTAIN from voting on this version of this resolution.

Journalists have no right to interfere with matters of national security, this is absurd, journalists cannot be relied upon to withhold confidential information that puts the security of the nation at risk.

Les Versailles wrote:Journalists have no right to interfere with matters of national security, this is absurd, journalists cannot be relied upon to withhold confidential information that puts the security of the nation at risk.

(OOC: Consider the second part of clause 3 ‘unless reporting on such activities could lead to loss of life or property, harm to individuals or property, or the jeopardisation of military efforts.’)

Would vote for, but it does not protect journalists carrying weapons, so gotta deny it.

The United States of Torculmania support this resolution wholeheartedly, as freedom of the press and transparency is a fundamental part of our nation. We are a neutral and pacifist nation, but we believe that this resolution will help war journalists around the world and prevent loss of life. The United States of Torculmania, hereby, support this resolution.

From: The Minister of Foreign Affairs

The Government of Anistria supports this resolution.

"Wars are quite often won or lost based on what the people who are fighting believe. As such, it is usually within the best interest of a sane nation to not give highly accurate details about what's going on in the front lines. If the people believe defeat is inevitable, all but the most idealist fools would rather face defeat than fight a futile war, even if they do whine about it afterwards. However, with the resolution in its current form, that shouldn't be an issue. So, we shall support it."
--- Kaiser

United Anarcho Communist Communes wrote:Would vote for, but it does not protect journalists carrying weapons, so gotta deny it.

The original draft of this did allow journalists to carry weapons, but it was removed because there were concerns over this.

IC: “The Government of Foril thanks the governments of these three noble nations for their support.”

Foril wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Any definitions in GA resolutions apply to that resolution only. I agree with the idea that this proposal provides benefits to journalists in nations that may not have freedom of the press, to the extent allowed by previous legislation. However, I feel as though it would be possible for this proposal to further increase freedom of the press.)

Upon further reading, you are right. I apologise.

However, I did find another point: the WA has a Judiciary Committee to determine compliance, and nations which use loopholes to skirt "existing World Assembly law" is exercising non-compliance according to this. Therefore, my point still stands: a nation which attempts to use a loophole to skirt this resolution would still be exercising non-compliance.

That's not how the WAJC operates. The WAJC adjudicates on violations of World Assembly law based on what the World Assembly mandates, not what its resolutions intend to happen.

Noting that many Nations run state controlled media; this piece of legislation will enable said nation to collect material for propaganda purposes and potentially slander peaceful nations with dishonest reporting and use of war imagery. Such actions can actually INCREASE the potential for war and violence and can be used to destabilise regions.

Again, the wording in this Act is too vague and will allow rogue nations to abuse the protections, in order to gain both a domestic and international upper hand in conflict zones.

Relating to the part of "a "wartime journalist" is a civilian wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press, and who is undertaking journalistic activities in a war zone" and "is carrying weapons", most journalists are hard to distinguish from a common soldier, especially from far away. They will have "PRESS" in small black letters, which is hard to see from far away. Plus they will most likely be surrounded by soldiers and in attacks it is hard to distinguish. This needs to be changed into a big distinguishing factor (ie Medics, who wear big armbands and their helmets are painted different). Plus no reasonable body can sufficiently protect journalists, and they understand the risk of harm or death in a combat zone. Thus, it is why some will carry weapons, also why combat medics will usually carry a pistol. Intergovernmental bodies will not protect them from harm so they will protect themselves. I will vote no for this resolution as it is extremely pointless and ineffective atm.

New Kyotostan wrote:Relating to the part of "a "wartime journalist" is a civilian wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press, and who is undertaking journalistic activities in a war zone" and "is carrying weapons", most journalists are hard to distinguish from a common soldier, especially from far away. They will have "PRESS" in small black letters, which is hard to see from far away. Plus they will most likely be surrounded by soldiers and in attacks it is hard to distinguish. This needs to be changed into a big distinguishing factor (ie Medics, who wear big armbands and their helmets are painted different). Plus no reasonable body can sufficiently protect journalists, and they understand the risk of harm or death in a combat zone. Thus, it is why some will carry weapons, also why combat medics will usually carry a pistol. Intergovernmental bodies will not protect them from harm so they will protect themselves. I will vote no for this resolution as it is extremely pointless and ineffective atm.

OOC: They are specifically BANNED from carrying weapons, I think you missed that.

Also, make them wear bright colours to stand out. Nothing says they can't be made to carry a huge sign saying "member of press" either. You're not limited to RL applications here.

The Angelsnow military operates openly as is and we have no hate or love for wartime journalists. we will kill them if they get in the line of fire or if they happen to be in an area we are attacking they may well end up dead. but we wont target them specifically and if they identify themseleves will be left alone to the best of our ability, assuming no criminal behaviour is done.

We vote yes.. for now.

We like the bill, but can't vote yes with "is carrying weapons," as a good reason to deny safe passage. A journalist in a war zone, covering a war, should be encouraged to carry weapons, not told not too. We understand the idea behind no weapons, but we also know some countries will attack these journalists weapons or no weapons. All said we in Krajakhstan could support a different version of this act, but not this one. As always, we'll follow it if voted, but would love to see some amendments in the future.

While the People's Republic of 21st Century Peronian shares the goals stated by this Resolution, we anticipate our vote against.

First, and as already expressed by other nations, we find that many of the definitions are vague and would give rise to arbitrariness on the part of the governments in charge of enforcing the Resolution. For example, the definition of "war zone" in Clause 1.a. is not clear, since it refers to "acts of war in progress" ... What does this definition include and what does not include? A conventional war? A civil war? A coup? Armed and prolonged demonstrations in time between different groups of the population?

Likewise, the definitions of "journalistic activities" (Clause 1.b.) and "journalist in times of war" (Clause 1.c.) do not require that the individual prove to be a journalist accredited, which would allow that virtually any civilian with a photo or video camera prowled the war zones, endangering their lives and that of others.

Something similar occurs with the term "endangering military efforts" (Clause 3), a concept so broad that, without any definition that restricts when this situation occurs, it could be practically an excuse for any State in war to prevent the dissemination of information (with the danger that this implies in cases where irregularities such as war crimes are being committed).

In summary, we understand that approving this Resolution will not improve the situation of journalists in times of war, so we urge the international community to reject it and to take additional time in order to improve its wording and scope.

21st Century Peronia wrote:which would allow that virtually any civilian with a photo or video camera prowled the war zones, endangering their lives and that of others.

OOC: The author doesn't care, they want the author badge.

Araraukar wrote:

21st Century Peronia wrote:which would allow that virtually any civilian with a photo or video camera prowled the war zones, endangering their lives and that of others.

OOC: The author doesn't care, they want the author badge.

Wait... does that not disappear with a repeal?

Foril wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: The author doesn't care, they want the author badge.

Wait... does that not disappear with a repeal?

No, it’s permanent.