[SUBMITTED] Replacement: Rights of War Correspondents

[Abacathea]

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.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"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.

[Abacathea]

"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

[Abacathea]

le bump

[Point Breeze]

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.

[Abacathea]

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. "

[Abacathea]

bump

[Separatist Peoples]

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?

[Abacathea]

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

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

[Abacathea]

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?

[Point Breeze]

Protecting War Correspondents?

Rights of War Correspondents?

Protecting Journalists in the Battlefield?

[Abacathea]

Protecting War Correspondents?

Rights of War Correspondents?

Protecting Journalists in the Battlefield?

Rights of War Correspondents sounds good!

[Point Breeze]

Protecting War Correspondents?

Rights of War Correspondents?

Protecting Journalists in the Battlefield?

Rights of War Correspondents sounds good!

Glad I could help!

[Abacathea]

Bumping passed the abortion blockade!

[Araraukar]

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.

[The Black Hat Guy]

(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?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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.

[Abacathea]

(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.

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

[The Black Hat Guy]

Thanks for the changes to the self-defense definition.

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.

[Abacathea]

Thanks for the changes to the self-defense definition.

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?

[The Dark Star Republic]

national populous

"Just noticed this one.

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

[Abacathea]

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

Will be moving to submit soon as I see there's another variant of this proposal being worked too.

[Abacathea]

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.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: GHR filed on the category.