NATION

PASSWORD

[SUBMITTED] Replacement: Rights of War Correspondents

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[SUBMITTED] Replacement: Rights of War Correspondents

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:12 pm

Coupled with TDE's repeal effort, I'm posting a replacement draft here. I accept it may need work so suggestions welcome :)

Rights of War Correspondents
Category: Human rights | Strength: Significant
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights


The General Assembly;

Accepting that despite the work undertaken by the World Assembly in bettering respective nations and international affairs that wars sadly still occur,

Considering it to be in the best interests of both the national and the international community to be kept informed of war time events as they develop,

Resolved to affording protections to the correspondents who travel to these war zones in an attempt to fulfill the provision of necessitated information to the international community,

Hereby;

Defines for the purpose of this act:

"War Correspondent" as any civilian individual employed for the purposes of, in part or in totality, relaying information to the media for dissemination to the public.

"Self Defence" as the use of force for self preservation so long as it is justified, necessitated, non-discriminatory and proportionate.

"War Zone" as an area wherein military combat is taking place and/or is marked by constant and extreme violent conflict.

Mandates;

(i) The welfare of war correspondents be given equal importance and afforded the same protections as would be placed on any other civilian or non-partisan actor in a war zone.

(ii) War Correspondents attached to a military body submit to any given orders required to ensure the protection of both the military body and the correspondent unless those orders would be in direct contravention of the non-partisan role of the correspondent and not required for self defence purposes.

(iii) War Correspondents are not permitted to engage in any military action outside of the role of an observer barring instances of self defence.

(iv) War correspondents who choose to become a willing participant in war zone conflict in any instance other than for the purposes of self defence nullify their correspondent status at that point in time and cannot be considered a non partisan actor under the terms of this resolution.

(v) A War Correspondent who, due to disaster of natural or war based origin, becomes the only available immediate medical responder shall not be deemed to have taken partisan action with the provision of medical aid, even if the patient is or was a combatant.
Last edited by Abacathea on Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:14 am, edited 11 times in total.
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

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

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:10 pm

"The original resolution defined 'warzone', and your replacement doesn't define 'war zone', so that may be something to consider. Nor does it even define 'war', which...hmmm. We will have to think about whether that matters.

"As to the basic protection, I'm concerned you're mixing up terminology. In Articles (i) and (iii), it's 'non-partisan'; in Article (ii), the term 'neutrality', used and defined nowhere else, is introduced; in Article (iv), it's 'non state actor', which also doesn't seem to correspond to the other protections.

"The 'significant threat' clause in Article (ii) is, and this isn't necessarily a problem, pretty vague.

"I'm also concerned the specificity of 'equal importance' in Article (i) compromising triage procedures. The welfare of a non-critically injured war correspondent is not of equal importance to that of a critically injured civilian.

"Finally, and this is purely personal preference and in no way affects anything legal nor our likely support for this proposal, but I do somewhat flinch at contractions in formal law - such as 'don't result in' in Article (ii).

"None of the arguments presented here should be understood as our delegation arguing against the principle of the repeal and replacement of this particular resolution."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

I know people get pretty flexible with the Human Rights category, but this really seems like more of a Moral Decency resolution. Does anything in this proposal actually increase civil freedom from government? All of it seems to restrain action: you can't do this, that, or the other.

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:32 pm

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"The original resolution defined 'warzone', and your replacement doesn't define 'war zone', so that may be something to consider. Nor does it even define 'war', which...hmmm. We will have to think about whether that matters.


I'd be inclined to feel that these really don't warrant definition. They seem pretty self defining, but that's just my take on it.

"As to the basic protection, I'm concerned you're mixing up terminology. In Articles (i) and (iii), it's 'non-partisan'; in Article (ii), the term 'neutrality', used and defined nowhere else, is introduced; in Article (iv), it's 'non state actor', which also doesn't seem to correspond to the other protections.


I've changed all bar the neutrality one, which I feel does what it needs to do where it is, again I feel adding a definition here would be muddying the waters a tad.

"The 'significant threat' clause in Article (ii) is, and this isn't necessarily a problem, pretty vague.


Changed it just to "A threat" less vague, and in truth probably closer to the intent I actually wanted anyway.

"I'm also concerned the specificity of 'equal importance' in Article (i) compromising triage procedures. The welfare of a non-critically injured war correspondent is not of equal importance to that of a critically injured civilian.


I've made a slight alteration to this clause which now reads;

"The welfare of war correspondents be given equal importance and afforded the same protections as would be placed on any other civilian or non-partisan actor."

This doesn't mean the likes of triage or anything are overruled, it simply ensures that they are not treated to any lesser extent by nature of their presence or work.

"Finally, and this is purely personal preference and in no way affects anything legal nor our likely support for this proposal, but I do somewhat flinch at contractions in formal law - such as 'don't result in' in Article (ii).


Actually to our embarrassment we agree, it's been edited.

"None of the arguments presented here should be understood as our delegation arguing against the principle of the repeal and replacement of this particular resolution."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

I know people get pretty flexible with the Human Rights category, but this really seems like more of a Moral Decency resolution. Does anything in this proposal actually increase civil freedom from government? All of it seems to restrain action: you can't do this, that, or the other.


I'm open to suggestions on this, but I would be inclined to think the category as it stands is right, it is the protection of freedoms to an extent within a warzone time will placing conditions on it. But if arguments can be made and supported I'm open to consideration.

Aba
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abacathea » Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:22 pm

le bump
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Point Breeze
Diplomat
 
Posts: 709
Founded: Dec 26, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Point Breeze » Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:36 pm

I would argue a definition of "war zone" is necessary since the protections outlined specifically apply in war zones. It's a significant word whose definition will affect implementation. I would perhaps drop "within a war zone," since correspondents would lose their protections if they're traveling to a war zone (by civil or military means) or reporting independently and not attached to a unit or platoon.

Also, I think clause ii is a little hard to understand. Too much "they," I thinks.
Thane of WA Affairs for Wintreath

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abacathea » Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:56 pm

Point Breeze wrote:I would argue a definition of "war zone" is necessary since the protections outlined specifically apply in war zones. It's a significant word whose definition will affect implementation. I would perhaps drop "within a war zone," since correspondents would lose their protections if they're traveling to a war zone (by civil or military means) or reporting independently and not attached to a unit or platoon.

Also, I think clause ii is a little hard to understand. Too much "they," I thinks.


Noted. Will amend the draft accordingly :)

Edit - Changes made, definition of warzone now added;

""War Zone" as an area wherein military combat is taking place and/or is marked by constant and extreme violent conflict. "
Last edited by Abacathea on Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:19 pm

bump
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

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

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:15 pm

I hate to nitpick, but I detest titles that start with "On X". As Ambassador Fungschlammer said not too long ago, such titles are best left to essays. Is there any hope of an editing of that particular piece?

Other then that, the only other criticism I'd offer is removing the term "non-discriminatory" from the definition of self-defense. I can see that becoming a point of all kinds of contention at an inquiry for a correspondent who had to fire upon an enemy soldier to defend himself. The C.D.S.P. would be making all sorts of claims that the correspondent had "anti-Confederate Dominion sympathies which aggravated the situation" should that be an issue for us. It doesn't hurt us in the least to launch an investigation that bogs down an "enemy" correspondence, you see?

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


User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:19 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:I hate to nitpick, but I detest titles that start with "On X". As Ambassador Fungschlammer said not too long ago, such titles are best left to essays. Is there any hope of an editing of that particular piece?

Other then that, the only other criticism I'd offer is removing the term "non-discriminatory" from the definition of self-defense. I can see that becoming a point of all kinds of contention at an inquiry for a correspondent who had to fire upon an enemy soldier to defend himself. The C.D.S.P. would be making all sorts of claims that the correspondent had "anti-Confederate Dominion sympathies which aggravated the situation" should that be an issue for us. It doesn't hurt us in the least to launch an investigation that bogs down an "enemy" correspondence, you see?


I can see no issue with utilizing it, (ooc: it's a real life justifier for use of force though hence why I included it. The 4 main criteria are Necessary, Proportionate, Non-Discriminate, and Accountable. the non discriminate being that of all the people wailing on you, you didn't only hit the Chinese guy for example (I have nothing against the Chinese!) ).

Moving on from that, any suggestions for a title? I'm open minded regarding titles to an extent :)
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

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

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:27 pm

Abacathea wrote:I can see no issue with utilizing it, (ooc: it's a real life justifier for use of force though hence why I included it. The 4 main criteria are Necessary, Proportionate, Non-Discriminate, and Accountable. the non discriminate being that of all the people wailing on you, you didn't only hit the Chinese guy for example (I have nothing against the Chinese!) ).

I see where you're coming from, and can accept that. On the exceedingly rare chance the C.D.S.P. goes to war, and the much less rare chance this passes, if nothing else, we may be able to gum up the enemy's investigative services with such claims. Every ounce counts, right?
Moving on from that, any suggestions for a title? I'm open minded regarding titles to an extent :)

Ah, while I'm excellent at pointing out what I don't like in a title, I must admit that I am awful at coming up with them myself. Is there anything inherently wrong with simply using the same title as the piece it will be replacing? Seems to cut out a lot of issues, and, in theory, there will be no confusion, since the original will be null and void.

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


User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:33 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Abacathea wrote:I can see no issue with utilizing it, (ooc: it's a real life justifier for use of force though hence why I included it. The 4 main criteria are Necessary, Proportionate, Non-Discriminate, and Accountable. the non discriminate being that of all the people wailing on you, you didn't only hit the Chinese guy for example (I have nothing against the Chinese!) ).

I see where you're coming from, and can accept that. On the exceedingly rare chance the C.D.S.P. goes to war, and the much less rare chance this passes, if nothing else, we may be able to gum up the enemy's investigative services with such claims. Every ounce counts, right?
Moving on from that, any suggestions for a title? I'm open minded regarding titles to an extent :)

Ah, while I'm excellent at pointing out what I don't like in a title, I must admit that I am awful at coming up with them myself. Is there anything inherently wrong with simply using the same title as the piece it will be replacing? Seems to cut out a lot of issues, and, in theory, there will be no confusion, since the original will be null and void.


Hmmm, it's a good point, but I'm not sure I like it though. Lets see, War Correspondence Act?
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Point Breeze
Diplomat
 
Posts: 709
Founded: Dec 26, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Point Breeze » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:13 pm

Protecting War Correspondents?

Rights of War Correspondents?

Protecting Journalists in the Battlefield?
Thane of WA Affairs for Wintreath

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:15 pm

Point Breeze wrote:Protecting War Correspondents?

Rights of War Correspondents?

Protecting Journalists in the Battlefield?


Rights of War Correspondents sounds good!
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Point Breeze
Diplomat
 
Posts: 709
Founded: Dec 26, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Point Breeze » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:18 pm

Abacathea wrote:
Point Breeze wrote:Protecting War Correspondents?

Rights of War Correspondents?

Protecting Journalists in the Battlefield?


Rights of War Correspondents sounds good!


Glad I could help!
Thane of WA Affairs for Wintreath

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:00 pm

Bumping passed the abortion blockade!
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14080
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:04 pm

I'm away for a few weeks and you go from perfectly good environmental proposals to silly ones like protecting idiots voluntarily wandering into active war zones? Bah.
OOC: Araraukar isn't that big on war - or non-propagandist newsfeeds, for that matter - and the above is miss Leverett's personal opinion... ok, maybe a little of mine too, though for different reasons. Wars are silly business in any case.
Last edited by Araraukar on Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

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

Postby The Black Hat Guy » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:41 am

(iii) War Correspondents remain objective and non partisan in their actions at all times except wherein it is required for the purposes of self defence.


War correspondents can't publish op-eds?

"Self Defence" as the use of force so long as it is justified, necessitated, non-discriminatory and proportionate.

Most soldiers believe that the force they are using is all of those things, especially nations defending themselves from aggressor nations. The force they are using is proportional, justified, necessitated, and non-discriminatory, because they were attacked first by another nation - does that mean that war correspondents can defend their own nations while still being afforded this protection?

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3439
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:44 pm

This looks like a well-reasoned resolution. Forgive me for propounding one quibble and one material concern. The quibble first: there's a redundant "that" in the preamble's first paragraph. We suggest:

Accepting that, despite the work undertaken by the World Assembly in bettering respective nations and international affairs, that wars sadly still occur,


Our other concern is more serious. Forgive my relative ignorance of past WA policy, but in past battlefield-relevant resolutions, does rendering emergency first aid constitute "self defense;" "partisan action;" or neither? We would have qualms about voting to replace the current policy unless the new policy (as part of its general improvements) makes this point clear. For example, if an "embedded" (attached to a military body in the language of this resolution) correspondent is the closest able-bodied person in the immediate aftermath of a detonation of munitions against her unit, is she permitted under this policy to give emergency treatment to the injured personnel in her vicinity? The resolution doesn't seem to specify what constitutes "partisan action" except to exclude self-defense, in which first aid is not prima facie included.

This might be problematic to define, but it's clear to us that a correspondent should not forfeit these protections through a simple attempt to do immediate humanitarian good.

We suggest something along the general lines of the following (more experienced drafters may propose better language):

(v) A War Correspondent who through accident of war becomes the only available immediate medical responder for a given patient shall not be deemed to have taken partisan action, even if the patient is or was a combatant.


We don't believe the term "medical responder" should require definition, but of course that's not likely to be a universally held opinion.

Thanks for your attention.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
Stephanie Athena Zakalwe
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279



User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abacathea » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:33 am

The Black Hat Guy wrote:
(iii) War Correspondents remain objective and non partisan in their actions at all times except wherein it is required for the purposes of self defence.


War correspondents can't publish op-eds?


I'm not familiar with that term, could you educate me on it?


"Self Defence" as the use of force so long as it is justified, necessitated, non-discriminatory and proportionate.

Most soldiers believe that the force they are using is all of those things, especially nations defending themselves from aggressor nations. The force they are using is proportional, justified, necessitated, and non-discriminatory, because they were attacked first by another nation - does that mean that war correspondents can defend their own nations while still being afforded this protection?


The definition of War Correspondent in this act defines War Correspondents as civilian personnel, so non applicable in relation to military correspondents which do also exist. I've edited the definition below though to alleviate your concerns, feedback appreciated;

"Self Defence" as the use of force for self preservation purposes, so long as it is justified, necessitated, non-discriminatory and proportionate.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

This might be problematic to define, but it's clear to us that a correspondent should not forfeit these protections through a simple attempt to do immediate humanitarian good.

We suggest something along the general lines of the following (more experienced drafters may propose better language):

(v) A War Correspondent who through accident of war becomes the only available immediate medical responder for a given patient shall not be deemed to have taken partisan action, even if the patient is or was a combatant.


We don't believe the term "medical responder" should require definition, but of course that's not likely to be a universally held opinion.

Thanks for your attention.


I've added in something to that effect :)
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

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

Postby The Black Hat Guy » Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:44 pm

Thanks for the changes to the self-defense definition.

Abacathea wrote:
The Black Hat Guy wrote:
War correspondents can't publish op-eds?


I'm not familiar with that term, could you educate me on it?


Opinion articles, commentaries, journalistic writings in which they don't take a non-biased viewpoint on the issue. If they are to remain "objective and non-partisan at all times", that would imply that war correspondents cannot write opinion pieces about the war they are reporting on.

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abacathea » Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:16 am

The Black Hat Guy wrote:Thanks for the changes to the self-defense definition.

Abacathea wrote:
I'm not familiar with that term, could you educate me on it?


Opinion articles, commentaries, journalistic writings in which they don't take a non-biased viewpoint on the issue. If they are to remain "objective and non-partisan at all times", that would imply that war correspondents cannot write opinion pieces about the war they are reporting on.


I suppose another way of looking on this then is to break it down accordingly:

The mandate that we're discussing here says that they remain objective in their actions, but not their thoughts. And the expression of thoughts is covered under already in effect WA resolutions, so we can safely deduce that this is relevant solely to actions on the ground separate to the above.

That said, if this isn't a sufficient way of appraising this, would you have any recommended wording that would ensure both neutrality of action on the ground while protecting your concern here?
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

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

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:45 am

Abacathea wrote:national populous

"Just noticed this one. :lol:
wars as the occur

"And this one.

"In general, I feel your preamble lacks a bit of justification of why it is really an issue for the WA, which has barely done anything to address actual civilian and humanitarian issues in war zones, to be reserving special protections for journalists who voluntarily enter such areas. You are defining war correspondents as civilians, but then treating them differently than civilians.

"If the WA just had a half decent resolution (or more than one) on civilian protection, this wouldn't even be necessary.
(iii) War Correspondents remain objective and non partisan in their actions at all times except wherein it is required for the purposes of self defence.

"Here is my problem with this. I am concerned that this would essentially suppress journalists from entering a war zone, witnessing humanitarian atrocities, and reporting those with an aim to motivating international coalitions as to mobilise for an intervention. 'Genocide should be prevented' is not a 'non-partisan' position.

"Objectivity is a myth anyway, and I'm not sure we should be writing myths into international law. If you want to prohibit war correspondents from giving military aid to either side, then that's understandable, but the provision as it stands is far broader than that.

"Overall I am not that convinced that this is a really international issue. I'm also still not keen on the category."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer
Last edited by The Dark Star Republic on Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abacathea » Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:52 am

Edited, all of the above and amended the mandate to:

(iii) War Correspondents are not permitted to engage in any military action outside of the role of an observer.

This should alleviate the concerns raised by yourself and TBHG in terms of being able to report what is seen. Killing the "neutral" aspect previously raised.

I still disagree on the category, but that's allowed :P

Will be moving to submit soon as I see there's another variant of this proposal being worked too.
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abacathea » Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:25 am

If no further criticisms will move to submit tonight after work. I feel this has hit the limit of what I envisioned for it, and that the concerns raised thus far (minus TDSR's category dislike (Sorry dude) ) have been addressed and thus will leave this to the voting crowd to decide on.
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

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

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:00 am

OOC: GHR filed on the category.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads