[SUBMITTED] Replacement: Rights of War Correspondents

[Abacathea]

OOC: GHR filed on the category.

I respect the fact you were open enough to publish it but call dick move at the same time and leave it at that.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I'm not sure what's so dickish about it. I voiced my opposition to the category several times prior to submission, and you didn't give a response beyond "I still disagree on the category, but that's allowed :P".

[Ardchoille]

[MODEDIT]: Spoiler tags removed for clarity. What follows is OOC.[/MODEDIT]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

One of the reasons authors get annoyed by GHRs making legality challenges is the feeling that the whole process takes place without their having a say. In fact, they do have a say; mods try to find the author's explanations in the drafting threads on challenged proposals, and if there's time in hand, we'll TG the author or post in the thread if we need clarification (we shouldn't need it, though; that's your job).

In this case we've got the luxury of a few days to spare before a decision absolutely has to be made, partly because the GHR went in almost immediately. So let's do this thing. Abacathea, could you please supply a fuller response than the one quoted above. I think I know what you're getting at, but I'm not sure, nor am I convinced yet.

What a Replacement author shouldn't say: that the repealed Resolution which theirs replaces was filed under the same category. First, because a difference in tone or focus between the original and yours can change a category decision; second, because ... well, there's a reason all Resolutions are technically legal.

What an author defending a Human Rights category should say: My proposal increases civil freedoms -- the freedom a nation's people have to live their daily lives -- in the following clauses, where [this happens], having [this civil-freedom-increasing effect] ...

For newcomers who are wondering what all the fuss is about: the category and strength of a Resolution affect every WA member's statistics. The category descriptions are fairly open about what statistics are affected. This can be important to individual players IC, OOC, or both, and therefore can influence a nation's vote. It also keeps statistical effects within NS's recognised "quirky" multiverse, rather than in the "completely insane" multiverse.

For example, a nation RPd as just emerging from a dictatorship may deliberately vote for resolutions in categories that increase personal freedoms, because that will show its citizens and the international community that things are changing. Or a pure-stats player may be willing to take a small drop in personal freedoms if there's a clear indication that it will improve the nation's economy.

This is the Human Rights category description (slightly edited):

... affect civil freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of WA member nations; Shall the WA require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms.

[Abacathea]

OOC: I'm not sure what's so dickish about it. I voiced my opposition to the category several times prior to submission, and you didn't give a response beyond "I still disagree on the category, but that's allowed ".

One of the reasons authors get annoyed by GHRs making legality challenges is the feeling that the whole process takes place without their having a say.

That right there summed up it up. In truth TDSR, I was just awake checked my phone and my immediate reaction was "da fuq". That said, Ard has set quite a fair and reasonable tone to getting this sorted one way or another and probably to the benefit of myself and newer nations, so I'm going to play ball without any fuss here. (And now I'm a little more awake, I apologise for the dick move comment, at the time it seemed like you were simply going to great lengths to disagree with me).

In this case we've got the luxury of a few days to spare before a decision absolutely has to be made, partly because the GHR went in almost immediately. So let's do this thing. Abacathea, could you please supply a fuller response than the one quoted above. I think I know what you're getting at, but I'm not sure, nor am I convinced yet.

I have read what you posted below, and while I had intended to back it up in part by the original resolution having shared the same category, I also did have a defence behind it. If I may though, I'm going to acknowledge the stats related element simply by pointing out before you posted the explanation I'd never really considered it, so I can't justify it on that front.

My intention all along was to write a resolution that was a better (less likely to be repealed) fit than it's former incarnation. The logic I applied to it was this, so I'll give a small breakdown of what I was going for and we'll see if you were actually following my train of thought here.

The point was to ensure that a war corespondent, who 95% of the time is not a native of the area they may be located in is afforded the same basic rights and protections as any other citizen of that nation would be, evidenced through this mandate:

(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.

There's two things on which this hinges on, one is the use of "afforded the same protections as would be placed on any other civilian" and secondly is the definition of "warzone" which keeps it to a point where even a neighborhood which dissolved into "warzone" status still has an obligation by a government to protect correspondents who go into it as it would police, emt's etc...

The other factor is this:

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.

This is the conditional clause on which the acquisition of the above rights and protections hinge. The forfeit clause if you will.

My logic from start to finish was that this resolution would afford basic rights, (protection, welfare etc...) on conditions that if were not met would see them forfeit. I suppose one could argue to the stats on that end that as nations are obligated under the terms of this resolution to afford these protections that it justifies the stat increase.

Ultimately, I leave the call to you Ard, sorry the secretariat got dragged in.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I'm assuming I'm allowed one reply.

The point was to ensure that a war corespondent, who 95% of the time is not a native of the area they may be located in is afforded the same basic rights and protections as any other citizen of that nation would be, evidenced through this mandate:

But this doesn't actually create any freedom from government action, any increase in personal freedom. Bear in mind, the WA has virtually no civilian protection legislation. I think it might even be possible to pass a law mandating the summary execution of civilians en masse. Obviously, it wouldn't pass: but my point is that rather than creating any new freedoms or explaining how the government is protecting the rights of correspondents, all you're really doing is creating a non-discrimination clause where there is no suggestion of any discrimination existing. No WA laws attempt to limit war correspondents' rights.

Furthermore, that's only one clause. The two other main mandatory clauses, (ii) and (iii), place restrictions on individual actions. War correspondents have to follow orders. And war correspondents can't engage in military actions. Those are both limiting individual freedoms, and given that nations have virtually no obligations under (i), they actually have more force.

This is why I believe this should be either Moral Decency, or Free Press.

Obviously the final decision is with the mods.

[Ardchoille]

The Secretariat's supposed to be dragged in when there's disagreement that players can't resolve. I should point out that Dark Star went by the book: point out a conflict; see if the author will revise; let the author take it to Moderation if the conflict seems irreconcilable; if they don't, then submit a GHR as early as possible.

What I'd generally call the real dick move is when a player spots a fault, doesn't tell the author about it during drafting, then submits a GHR so late there's no hope of any discussion. But even this can be done for valid reasons (such as fear of in-game repercussions), rather than in malicious hope of skewering a political opponent with an illegal-proposal warning. And sometimes a fault isn't spotted until it's too late, as anyone who remembers Max Barry Day will confirm.

So, on to the categories. I totally get it that a person can operate in the GA for some time without regarding the stats underlying category requirements as little more than "gamer concerns" or "nitpicking", because I managed to do the same. But eventually (unfortunately, too late for my economy) I realised the link.

Try thinking of it this way: just as GA#2 wraps words around game necessities, so do proposal category descriptions. The necessity is that a GA proposal will have in-game effects as well as RP effects, and the wording of the categories tries to tell you what those effects will be without giving too much away, because the GA is, after all, part of a game as well as an RPd international legislature. Uncertain outcomes and skill are game factors.

What I've got from the text and from your explanation so far is:

• War correspondents make everyone freer of government intervention in their lives because they keep "both the national and the international community ... informed of war time events as they develop". (From the discussion, this seems to mean that war correspondents stop governments from keeping secret such things as war crimes or dodgy practices. This would be government interference with their people's daily lives because the people might react differently if they knew.)
• Therefore war correspondents should be protected so they can continue doing this.
• But they will be protected only if they meet @@conditions@@.

At the moment (post Repeal) the GA does not oblige member states to put any restrictions on war correspondents' conduct. The conditions this proposal would impose seem to be limiting their conduct.

While we've had other legal proposals where regulating an act or a single group increases overall freedoms, the general idea that limits=freedoms is counter-intuitive. I'd welcome further comment from players here. The question is: does this proposal increase civil freedoms and, if so, how? Is it a better fit in another category? Please back up your statements with reference to the proposal text.

(EDIT: This was written before I'd seen Dark Star's post. So far, we seem to be focussing on similar points, but I won't give a ruling yet.)

[The Dourian Embassy]

At the moment (post Repeal) the GA does not oblige member states to put any restrictions on war correspondents' conduct. The conditions this proposal would impose seem to be limiting their conduct.

I'd argue that's not the case. There are some limitations imposed, and then a clear penalty for ignoring those limitations. This line here: "(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." specifically negates any clause that prohibits actions. It's implied that the war correspondent is free to do whatever, but if they fail to follow the limitations included in the proposal, they lose the protections the proposals grants.

So that leaves us with just the extra rights the proposal affords, rather than the limitations... follow these rules and gain these rights. Furthermore, I'd argue that the specificity we're talking in here is a problem. The protections afforded to the war correspondents increases freedom of expression for everyone else. I cannot think of a better category, this isn't about moral decency, it isn't about international security, it isn't about social justice, it's about freedom of the press. This resolution will set minimum standards for the protection of the press so they are better able to bring information to the public... Human Rights is literally the only option.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The protections afforded to the war correspondents increases freedom of expression for everyone else. I cannot think of a better category, this isn't about moral decency, it isn't about international security, it isn't about social justice, it's about freedom of the press.

OOC: You do realize that neither "Freedom of Expression" or "Freedom of Press" are in the Human Rights category?

[The Dourian Embassy]

The protections afforded to the war correspondents increases freedom of expression for everyone else. I cannot think of a better category, this isn't about moral decency, it isn't about international security, it isn't about social justice, it's about freedom of the press.

OOC: You do realize that neither "Freedom of Expression" or "Freedom of Press" are in the Human Rights category?

They're civil rights, which IS in that category.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: You do realize that neither "Freedom of Expression" or "Freedom of Press" are in the Human Rights category?

They're civil rights, which IS in that category.

OOC: That doesn't make any sense. You said that "Human Rights is literally the only option", because this is about "freedom of expression" and "freedom of the press". Yet the two resolutions that increase those very freedoms aren't in the Human Rights category!

Furthermore, that debate is largely academic, because this proposal doesn't actually increase freedom of expression/the press at all. It provides that "[t]he 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". If a military authority were censoring all civilian transmissions then it wouldn't be in violation of this proposal, because it would still be treating war correspondents exactly the same as any other civilian.

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: That doesn't make any sense. You said that "Human Rights is literally the only option", because this is about "freedom of expression" and "freedom of the press". Yet the two resolutions that increase those very freedoms aren't in the Human Rights category!

Furthermore, that debate is largely academic, because this proposal doesn't actually increase freedom of expression/the press at all. It provides that "[t]he 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". If a military authority were censoring all civilian transmissions then it wouldn't be in violation of this proposal, because it would still be treating war correspondents exactly the same as any other civilian.

"A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights." That's the label on the Human Rights category. Just like the author of this can't point to the piece he's replacing to say "well the old one was in this category", nor can we now point to those as examples of how those rights should be protected. The category says what it says. We can't change that cause we'd like to.

You're looking at the resolution in an extremely limited scope, and wondering what everyone else is going on about. What I'm saying, at least, is that this is a broader promotion of civil rights. It increases the protections afforded to war correspondents, and therefore makes it easier and safer for reporting on the war to be done(tying into freedom of the press and freedom of expression). It increases civil rights, there's no way around that.

[Auralia]

I don't really understand why we should have a special resolution for war correspondents instead of a general resolution governing the treatment of civilians during warfare.

[Draica]

"The Republic of Draica one hundread-percent agrees with these conditions as our War Correspondents are an important source of information in armed conflicts.

Support."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights." That's the label on the Human Rights category. Just like the author of this can't point to the piece he's replacing to say "well the old one was in this category", nor can we now point to those as examples of how those rights should be protected. The category says what it says. We can't change that cause we'd like to.

You're looking at the resolution in an extremely limited scope, and wondering what everyone else is going on about. What I'm saying, at least, is that this is a broader promotion of civil rights. It increases the protections afforded to war correspondents, and therefore makes it easier and safer for reporting on the war to be done(tying into freedom of the press and freedom of expression). It increases civil rights, there's no way around that.

OOC: How does it make it 'easier and safer' for war correspondents? The only protection offered them is '[t]he 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'. That is not creating any new personal freedom.

Bear in mind what "Freedom of the Press" already permits:

2. International news media organisations can only operate from within a nation's borders (ie. utilising available media technologies to report news) when given explicit permission to do so, and are subject to the same laws which apply to national news media organisations.
...
5. Reports from news media organisations operating within the nation's borders can only be censored if they pose a genuine threat to the security of the nation. Otherwise they are free to report news in accordance with any national freedom of expression laws and broadcasting codes of conduct.

This proposal cannot override Article 2, and therefore it does not actually mandate nations allow war correspondents to even enter their "war zones" in the first place. Furthermore, censorship is still permitted under Article 5, in the case of 'a genuine threat to the security of the nation', another provision this proposal cannot override.

I have made reference to the proposal text and the description of the category's mechanical effects; I have managed to keep my commentary on this proposal free of personal invective. If you are not prepared to do the same but are instead simply going to claim I am 'wondering what everyone else is going on about' while claiming some nebulous 'civil right' without explaining what that right is or how this proposal advances it, then I don't believe there is anything further to discuss.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I didn't mean you not understanding what we were talking about as a bad thing. Everyone views legislation differently, some people view the small details(I'm guilty of that more often than not) some people only view them from the big picture of things. Neither choice is wrong, but when you start filing GHR's to force an argument(and there is nothing wrong with that either), then it's worth noting that you're not thinking of the resolution the same way as some other people. That said, I'd like to point out two things, then go ahead and make some counter points to the points you just raised.

First of all, you're claiming that you're referencing the proposal text and making a stake for the high ground. You quoted it in your original comment, and your last one. I've quoted it in my original reply, and I'll be quoting it in this one. I'm fairly certain we're even. As for personal invectives, I'd ask you to see above.

Second, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I have no horse in this race. I know I'm right, don't get me wrong, and I'm not liable to just let the issue go by without having a say, but if I fail to convince you, that's just tough for me.

Now onto the points themselves, which is probably what we should stick to...

The line is simple: "(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."

Now what we're dealing with here is a protection of the war correspondents, especially, but not limited to embedded reporters. Embedded reporters are at risk when they go into a hostile nation, and that risk isn't mitigated by simply showing press credentials, unless this resolution were to be in effect. You're specifically looking at the reporters and saying "This places limits on their actions in return for protections, this must be moral decency," but moral decency has to take rights away, which this proposal will not do. Reporters are free to do whatever they like, and are only limited if they want the protections this proposal offers. But the protections this proposal offers are part of a grander scheme of civil rights.

It's not a nebulous idea, it's a simple flow: Nation wants to suppress knowledge of an atrocity, but the nation they're fighting with wants to find out more about it. The nation they're fighting sends reporters in and they do the story, return home. This increase of knowledge through the press is an intrinsic promotion of the freedom of press(who are freer to report honestly about the atrocity despite the originating nation not wanting it to to get out), and this proposal offers them protections to get that job done. This is big picture stuff, it's not national freedoms being increased here, it's the international freedom of the press being increased.

And not to shift gears on you, but it clearly and specifically allows reporters to administer medical aid without spoiling their protections here: "(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.".

None of this is a small effect, despite what it may look like.

[The Dark Star Republic]

You're specifically looking at the reporters and saying "This places limits on their actions in return for protections, this must be moral decency," but moral decency has to take rights away, which this proposal will not do.

OOC: I'm not saying this 'must be' Moral Decency, and I'd like if you didn't put words in my mouth. What I said was 'I believe this should be either Moral Decency, or Free Press'; I don't have the exact text of my GHR submission, but all I said was that the category was not Human Rights, and that it could be Moral Decency or Free Press.

So yes, I do believe the restrictions imposed, which ban war correspondents from certain actions, do outweigh the freedoms from government action granted - this resolution doesn't prevent governments from censoring, banning, or even attacking war correspondents - but it's not for me to make a case that this definitely belongs in another category, only that it doesn't belong in this one.

Reporters are free to do whatever they like, and are only limited if they want the protections this proposal offers. But the protections this proposal offers are part of a grander scheme of civil rights.

But again, what protections does this proposal actually offer?

All it says is that war correspondents cannot be treated differently than any other civilians. But war correspondents are defined within the proposal as civilians. In other words, there is nothing in WA law suggesting they would be treated any differently without this! It would be like passing a law demanding that people with beards have the same rights as other civilians. However, war correspondents cannot do certain things, like giving military aid, whereas the WA has no laws on paramilitary/irregular military action, meaning that war correspondents actually are more restricted in their personal freedom of action than other civilians.

Furthermore, the WA has virtually no laws on civilian protection. There are a few incidental references here and there (for example, in "International Criminal Court"), but there is no WA equivalent of, for example, the Geneva or Hague Conventions. This means that by requiring war correspondents receive "the same" protections as civilians - you're not actually giving them any meaningful protections.

To say nothing of the fact that the Human Rights category isn't even about "protections", anyway. It is about increasing personal freedom.

It's not a nebulous idea, it's a simple flow: Nation wants to suppress knowledge of an atrocity, but the nation they're fighting with wants to find out more about it. The nation they're fighting sends reporters in and they do the story, return home. This increase of knowledge through the press is an intrinsic promotion of the freedom of press(who are freer to report honestly about the atrocity despite the originating nation not wanting it to to get out), and this proposal offers them protections to get that job done. This is big picture stuff, it's not national freedoms being increased here, it's the international freedom of the press being increased.

How is freedom of press being increased? (And if that really is the effect of this proposal, why isn't the 'Free Press' category being used?)

Bear in mind that a nation can be perfectly in compliance with this resolution and still do all of the following:

• ban war correspondents from entering war zones
• expel war correspondents from war zones
• limit freedom of travel of war correspondents within war zones
• restrict access of war correspondents to information
• censor war correspondents' reports
• even commit acts of oppression against war correspondents so long as they do not escalate to the point of being considered "war crimes" by the International Criminal Court

I can't exactly hear Hymn to Freedom playing...

[Abacathea]

To be honest, I'm watching this debate progress and waiting for an official mod decision. There's nothing more I can add that I haven't said already that wouldn't be either borrowed to defend my point, or repeating myself. So in the interests of transparency I'm standing back. I'll make a formal decision on this once the mods make theirs.

[Ardchoille]

I'm sorry this was such a delayed execution; it wasn't caused by fiery mod debate right up to the last minute. In fact, there was no debate, but I had to allow time for it anyway.

I'll post a more detailed comment in about nine hours when RL gives me time to string sentences together.

[Abacathea]

I'm sorry this was such a delayed execution; it wasn't caused by fiery mod debate right up to the last minute. In fact, there was no debate, but I had to allow time for it anyway.

I'll post a more detailed comment in about nine hours when RL gives me time to string sentences together.

Thanks Ard. I await your feedback.

[Ardchoille]

Your proposal had a category violation and a strength violation. This does not mean it was in the wrong category for the concept. It does mean that the active text didn’t meet the requirements of the category, and wasn’t as far-reaching as it needed to be.

Category: Possibilities for the proposal included Press Freedom, Moral Decency and Human Rights. (The political freedoms in Furtherment of Democracy/Political Stability seem to me more relevant before or after wartime.)

Press Freedom is an area of effect in a category requiring funding and development. It may be possible to write about war correspondents in that connection, but it wasn’t your take on the matter.

Moral Decency requires restriction of day-to-day freedoms, generally to achieve a greater good: for example, reducing freedom of expression to protect national security in time of war. Not what you seem to have in mind, though you did restrict.

Human Rights requires increases in ordinary people’s civil freedoms. If I’ve read the prefatory clauses aright, you’re postulating an international right for people to know about war (because what’s happening will affect how they decide to live their day-to-day lives). War correspondents are the way they get to know. Thus, giving the correspondents more rights gives the people rights.

What rights did you give them?

Clause (i) effectively says war correspondents can’t be discriminated against just because they’re war correspondents. They have the same rights as everybody else. This was already the case.

Clauses (ii) and (iii) give them the right to self-defence. They already had that.

Those clauses escape being duplication because they clarify that the rights exist in military situations, where some might argue they do not, should not or cannot. But they don’t actually add to the correspondents’ civil freedoms.

Clause (v), the medical responder clause, confirms that they’re allowed to treat the wounded if they’re closest. While this might seem to be a freedom, we don’t actually have any international laws forbidding anyone to treat the wounded. So it says they can do what anyone can.

Clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) reduce their civil rights: they are subject to military orders. By the reasonable nation convention, you can argue that they will be reasonable orders and imposed only to secure the safety of the soldiers and the journalist. You can also argue that they are part of the journalist’s conditions of employment, or workplace safety regulations. Nonetheless, the WA is not telling the nations, the army or the employer what to do, it is telling the journalist directly.

More significantly, clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) impose non-partisanship on the journalists. While this may be desirable, in your proposal it is no longer a personal, professional choice -– a civil right has been restricted. This may have an impact on how the reports are written and received, and so influence the international effect of war correspondents generally.

(I’m trying to avoid getting into whether WA-determined non-partisanship is a good thing or a bad thing. The point is that it is WA-determined.)

My last quibble is one I came up with only after making the decision on the proposal, but I feel it creates a possible loophole in the definition, which would also reduce the significance.

The definition covers those employed as war correspondents. This could be read as applying only to those attached to organisations as salaried employees. Yet freelance, independent and even avowedly partisan correspondents can have a major role in informing the international community*. But the proposal doesn’t cover such correspondents.

*(eg, Wilfred Burchett and the effects of fallout in Hiroshima; Ernest Hemingway during the Spanish Civil War; Robert Ridenhour, who disclosed the Vietnam War My Lai massacre.)

[Ardchoilleans]

What follows is advice, but not a ruling:

The WA can act only through nations/national governments. A quick check of the Human Rights resolutions suggests there are two general approaches.

In one, the WA secures individuals’ freedoms by telling governments what to do (eg, WA #7, Workplace Safety Standards). In the other, it tells governments what not to do (eg, WA # 57 Refugee Protection).

So. If you plan to re-write, you could look at it as writing a list that governments must follow to create “workplace safety” for war correspondents, or as a list of rules forbidding governments to interfere with @@actions@@ of war correspondents, or a combination.

Approaching it from “WA --> nations --> war correspondents”, rather than “WA --> war correspondents”, is more likely to help you focus on the WA enforcing or nations surrendering rights. If you're still planning on "Significant", you should also make clear the link between war correspondents’ day-to-day freedoms and more general day-to-day freedoms.

As to ideas, players have posted in this thread some things that nations might do or be prevented from doing that could increase war correspondents' civil freedoms. You might also check WA #18's treatment of civilian PoWs, and WA #164, Consular Rights, for freedoms that could be confirmed in wartime.

[Abacathea]

What follows is advice, but not a ruling:

The WA can act only through nations/national governments. A quick check of the Human Rights resolutions suggests there are two general approaches.

In one, the WA secures individuals’ freedoms by telling governments what to do (eg, WA #7, Workplace Safety Standards). In the other, it tells governments what not to do (eg, WA # 57 Refugee Protection).

So. If you plan to re-write, you could look at it as writing a list that governments must follow to create “workplace safety” for war correspondents, or as a list of rules forbidding governments to interfere with @@actions@@ of war correspondents, or a combination.

Approaching it from “WA --> nations --> war correspondents”, rather than “WA --> war correspondents”, is more likely to help you focus on the WA enforcing or nations surrendering rights. If you're still planning on "Significant", you should also make clear the link between war correspondents’ day-to-day freedoms and more general day-to-day freedoms.

As to ideas, players have posted in this thread some things that nations might do or be prevented from doing that could increase war correspondents' civil freedoms. You might also check WA #18's treatment of civilian PoWs, and WA #164, Consular Rights, for freedoms that could be confirmed in wartime.

Thanks Ard, I appreciate the unofficial advice and will review it. I might let this simmer for a wee bit though.

[Goddess Relief Office]

Bear in mind what "Freedom of the Press" already permits:

2. International news media organisations can only operate from within a nation's borders (ie. utilising available media technologies to report news) when given explicit permission to do so, and are subject to the same laws which apply to national news media organisations.
...
5. Reports from news media organisations operating within the nation's borders can only be censored if they pose a genuine threat to the security of the nation. Otherwise they are free to report news in accordance with any national freedom of expression laws and broadcasting codes of conduct.

This proposal cannot override Article 2, and therefore it does not actually mandate nations allow war correspondents to even enter their "war zones" in the first place. Furthermore, censorship is still permitted under Article 5, in the case of 'a genuine threat to the security of the nation', another provision this proposal cannot override.

OOC:
I'm reading 2 and 5 of FoTP a little differently. They seem to pertain specifically to news within a governed nation, not in a contested war zone which one could argue as being temporarily "state less" since government authority does not extend into that zone. Furthermore, embeded war correspondents typically do not come from the same nation that's at war. It doesn't make sense that they need permission to enter the war zone.

My guess is the clauses in FoTP were not written to deal with something like this, and shouldn't be interpreted as such.

Regards,
~GRO~

[The Dark Star Republic]

Bear in mind what "Freedom of the Press" already permits:

This proposal cannot override Article 2, and therefore it does not actually mandate nations allow war correspondents to even enter their "war zones" in the first place. Furthermore, censorship is still permitted under Article 5, in the case of 'a genuine threat to the security of the nation', another provision this proposal cannot override.

OOC:
I'm reading 2 and 5 of FoTP a little differently. They seem to pertain specifically to news within a governed nation, not in a contested war zone which one could argue as being temporarily "state less" since government authority does not extend into that zone. Furthermore, embeded war correspondents typically do not come from the same nation that's at war. It doesn't make sense that they need permission to enter the war zone.

My guess is the clauses in FoTP were not written to deal with something like this, and shouldn't be interpreted as such.

Regards,
~GRO~

OOC: There is nothing anywhere in WA law that defines war zones as being "stateless". Rights and Duties... even defines war as "a consensual act between two or more NationStates". My point stands: nothing in this proposal even requires nations to admit war correspondents in the first case, which I'm sure contributed to the ruling that it is a category violation.

I won't continue the argument, though, as Abacathea is, instead of responding to criticisms, letting the proposal "simmer." When it's time to take it off the boil again, I'll be happy to continue this.