NationStates

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild



The World Assembly,

Realizing there is currently no legislation in place to protect war correspondents.

Knowing that the previous legislation concerning the safety of war correspondents was rightfully struck out null and void,

Understanding that correspondents do not have legal immunity and can be either swayed by personal bias, a third-party, or ignorance of the law to commit unlawful acts,

Hereby,

1. Defines a war correspondent as a militarily unbiased journalist who reports details of a military conflict from a firsthand perspective in such a way that it does not benefit a military combatant politically, militarily, or in any other fashion,

2. Mandates that all war correspondents be marked as such via a uniform distinction and carried identification,

3. Establishes that soldiers, officials, or otherwise affiliates of any military may not fire upon, assault, or otherwise attack a war correspondent physically in an intentional form,

4. Prohibits official militaries from taking a war correspondent as a prisoner of war under any circumstances unless the correspondents violates their own neutrality as stated in the definition,

5. Forbids combatants from bribing a war correspondent or threatening them with violence to influence the correspondent's actions, and further forbids a war correspondent from soliciting or accepting bribes,

6. Clarifies that while war correspondents in their work must have leeway to report and conduct interviews with primary sources, combatants remain under no obligation to answer,

7. States that war correspondents have no right to possess confidential military or political informations pertaining to combatants in the conflict they are reporting, and that to possess and/or disclose said information identifies them as a combatant themselves.

I'm concerned that in its current form that nations would intentionally have war correspondents with the troops and announce their presence to the enemy, as an underhanded tactic to shield their troops, since if the war correspondent is on the ground with the troops it'd be extremely difficult for said enemy to guarantee that they are not firing at the war correspondents.

The New California Republic wrote:I'm concerned that in its current form that nations would intentionally have war correspondents with the troops and announce their presence to the enemy, as an underhanded tactic to shield their troops, since if the war correspondent is on the ground with the troops it'd be extremely difficult for said enemy to guarantee that they are not firing at the war correspondents.

Updated, see new clauses A5 and B3.

"What, exactly," said Rahlen, as though she were talking to someone she didn't think was particularly bright, "do you think a War Correspondent is? You don't define it, and you seem to be under the impression that they're deserving of special protections, so you will want to make what you're actually talking about clear.

In the Imperium, the only people who are authorized to report on conflicts are military personnel; if you want to know how a battle is going, you ask the Praetorian, not some civilian who shouldn't be within a light-minute of the engagement. If you're going to prevent our Military officers from doing their jobs because they can technically also talk to the news, you'll want to reconsider."

Tinfect wrote:"What, exactly," said Rahlen, as though she were talking to someone she didn't think was particularly bright, "do you think a War Correspondent is? You don't define it, and you seem to be under the impression that they're deserving of special protections, so you will want to make what you're actually talking about clear.

In the Imperium, the only people who are authorized to report on conflicts are military personnel; if you want to know how a battle is going, you ask the Praetorian, not some civilian who shouldn't be within a light-minute of the engagement. If you're going to prevent our Military officers from doing their jobs because they can technically also talk to the news, you'll want to reconsider."

OOC: Defined war correspondent.

IC: "Sir, maybe you aren't concerned with the matters addressed in this proposal, but many others are and to be frank your membership of the WA gives you a responsibility to accept what the popular vote puts forth."

Liberimarcat wrote:"Sir"

"Look at me, and try that one again."

Liberimarcat wrote:maybe you aren't concerned with the matters addressed in this proposal,

"If that were true, I wouldn't be here. I would love not to be here, I could be doing, I don't know, paperwork, instead of having to tell foreigners how real wars work."

Liberimarcat wrote:"but many others are and to be frank your membership of the WA gives you a responsibility to accept what the popular vote puts forth."

"Are you actually talking to me? Because none of that has anything to do with anything I said."

“Clause 4 seems a little bit broad to me. Active warfare has a tendency to make it quite hard to report details on anything, without necessarily meaning to. For example, loud gunshots make interviews rather challenging, and I’m sure that a siege impairs access to witnesses.”

Tinfect wrote:

Liberimarcat wrote:"Sir"

"Look at me, and try that one again."

Liberimarcat wrote:maybe you aren't concerned with the matters addressed in this proposal,

"If that were true, I wouldn't be here. I would love not to be here, I could be doing, I don't know, paperwork, instead of having to tell foreigners how real wars work."

Liberimarcat wrote:"but many others are and to be frank your membership of the WA gives you a responsibility to accept what the popular vote puts forth."

"Are you actually talking to me? Because none of that has anything to do with anything I said."

"War correspondents are essential for most nation's public's view of wartime. If they are not protected the only information source is through the biased government. Imagine you are fighting an army in a war and you are winning, but the opposing government tells the world the opposite. In order to maintain a balanced and equal view of conflict, war correspondents must be protected."

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 4 seems a little bit broad to me. Active warfare has a tendency to make it quite hard to report details on anything, without necessarily meaning to. For example, loud gunshots make interviews rather challenging, and I’m sure that a siege impairs access to witnesses.”

Updated.

Liberimarcat wrote:"War correspondents are essential for most nation's public's view of wartime.

"No, the Imperium has gotten by just fine over the last four-hundred years without having civilians running around with cameras in the middle of a battlefield."

Liberimarcat wrote:If they are not protected the only information source is through the biased government.

"The... 'biased government'? Where do you think you are, some... dissident meeting? This is the World Assembly; I serve the Imperium. I presume you represent your Government, or you wouldn't be here. Maybe if you foreigners are so distrustful of your government, you should do something about it, instead of assuming every Nation is as incompetent as yours."

Liberimarcat wrote:Imagine you are fighting an army in a war and you are winning, but the opposing government tells the world the opposite. In order to maintain a balanced and equal view of conflict, war correspondents must be protected."

"Do you have any idea how wars work? Everyone in a war says they're winning, that's called morale-building. If you want 'balanced' views of a conflict, check the casualty reports."

Tinfect wrote:

Liberimarcat wrote:"War correspondents are essential for most nation's public's view of wartime.

"No, the Imperium has gotten by just fine over the last four-hundred years without having civilians running around with cameras in the middle of a battlefield."

Liberimarcat wrote:If they are not protected the only information source is through the biased government.

"The... 'biased government'? Where do you think you are, some... dissident meeting? This is the World Assembly; I serve the Imperium. I presume you represent your Government, or you wouldn't be here. Maybe if you foreigners are so distrustful of your government, you should do something about it, instead of assuming every Nation is as incompetent as yours."

Liberimarcat wrote:Imagine you are fighting an army in a war and you are winning, but the opposing government tells the world the opposite. In order to maintain a balanced and equal view of conflict, war correspondents must be protected."

"Do you have any idea how wars work? Everyone in a war says they're winning, that's called morale-building. If you want 'balanced' views of a conflict, check the casualty reports."

"Liberimarcat has no state, we are an anarcho-capitalist society, I am a corporate elected delegate to the World Assembly. As such, perhaps I am very distrusting of most governments. That's besides the point. If you don't use war correspondents, that's fine, but wartime rights are important to the world. There any many other pacts of war that have been passed by the WA that tells your soldiers what they can and can't do, if you don't support this proposal then just ignore it and vote against it if it reaches quorum."

Liberimarcat wrote:"Liberimarcat has no state, we are an anarcho-capitalist society, I am a corporate elected delegate to the World Assembly.

"... Is this a joke? Are we just letting anybody in here now?"

Liberimarcat wrote:There any many other pacts of war that have been passed by the WA that tells your soldiers what they can and can't do, if you don't support this proposal then just ignore it and vote against it if it reaches quorum."

"A draft that directly mandates that the Imperium be forced to allow Civilians in active warzones is certainly within our concern. There's more to politics than just 'voting', especially if you work for an actual government. Maybe you should try it."

Tinfect wrote:

Liberimarcat wrote:"Liberimarcat has no state, we are an anarcho-capitalist society, I am a corporate elected delegate to the World Assembly.

"... Is this a joke? Are we just letting anybody in here now?"

Liberimarcat wrote:There any many other pacts of war that have been passed by the WA that tells your soldiers what they can and can't do, if you don't support this proposal then just ignore it and vote against it if it reaches quorum."

"A draft that directly mandates that the Imperium be forced to allow Civilians in active warzones is certainly within our concern. There's more to politics than just 'voting', especially if you work for an actual government. Maybe you should try it."

"You think I don't know that? I can't help that the World Assembly is based on popular vote. Humor me, in the past what have your armies done with war correspondents from other nations, neutral or enemy?"

Liberimarcat wrote:"Humor me, in the past what have your armies done with war correspondents from other nations, neutral or enemy?"

"You mean, civilians in active warzones? They're evacuated. Foreign personnel operating along with their armed forces are presumed to be part of their armed forces; one would hope the Aeravahn doesn't put civilians on its front lines, but at that point, it's not our fault."

Tinfect wrote:

Liberimarcat wrote:"Humor me, in the past what have your armies done with war correspondents from other nations, neutral or enemy?"

"You mean, civilians in active warzones? They're evacuated. Foreign personnel operating along with their armed forces are presumed to be part of their armed forces; one would hope the Aeravahn doesn't put civilians on its front lines, but at that point, it's not our fault."

"Ok, well keep in mind this proposal has regulations for the civilians as well. They just stay half a mile away from active prolonged gunfire, and will be evacuated in a bombardment of siege, so as long as you aren't purposely gunning down correspondents it isn't even too much of a bother. If they directly aid the armed forces you can take them as POWs as well."

Liberimarcat wrote:"Ok, well keep in mind this proposal has regulations for the civilians as well. They just stay half a mile away from active prolonged gunfire, and will be evacuated in a bombardment of siege, so as long as you aren't purposely gunning down correspondents it isn't even too much of a bother. If they directly aid the armed forces you can take them as POWs as well."

" 'Half a mile from active weaponsfire' is still the middle of a warzone, it isn't safe, Civilians should not be there. The Imperium certainly isn't going to allow civilian, and especially not foreigners, in the middle of a warzone. I don't see what's hard to understand about that.

If they're aiding the enemy, they're an enemy combatant, chances are they'll be killed, as an enemy combatant. War's aren't clean-cut little engagements where you can tell everyone apart, you understand? A journalist with a weapon looks exactly the same as a soldier with a weapon from a targeting computer; they're an armed, enemy combatant.

And uh, it's not much of a 'prisoner of war', if the enemy can just decide whether or not we are going to free them. That's not acceptable."

Tinfect wrote:And uh, it's not much of a 'prisoner of war', if the enemy can just decide whether or not we are going to free them. That's not acceptable."

"You know, I can agree with you on this, I'll revise that clause."

"The Solidarity Movement has some comments on the draft in terms of both writing and content. If the Ambassador from Liberimarcat will allow us, we have a copy of the changes to formatting and, presumably, nonconsequential language here. Our purpose, in general, is to move things around and clean up the language. Defining things in the preamble, using 'militant fighter' when I do not think a non-militant fighter exists, and some other issues are addressed. We have also conformed to a more wide-spread Assembly styleguide."


"As you can probably see, we have made quite a few revisions to the language, and we have moved some things around. Most significant in this revision, though, is the neutrality is moved into the definition, which means you can avoid much of the fluff later on. We have also deleted all references to punishment and prosecution and which court must do it - frankly, that is micromanagement on a level far exceeding our care."

"Now, for more substantial response, we are generally in favour of increasing public access to information and protections for journalists. We don't have a perfect phrase for a general protection against attacking media broadcasters, but would like one built in early on. We also think a clarification on more ambiguous terms, such as 'militant bodies', is needed."


OOC:
Edit: Okay, just spotted how I failed in the numbering of the active clauses myself. Yay.

Attempted Socialism wrote:"The Solidarity Movement has some comments on the draft in terms of both writing and content. If the Ambassador from Liberimarcat will allow us, we have a copy of the changes to formatting and, presumably, nonconsequential language here. Our purpose, in general, is to move things around and clean up the language. Defining things in the preamble, using 'militant fighter' when I do not think a non-militant fighter exists, and some other issues are addressed. We have also conformed to a more wide-spread Assembly styleguide."

Liberimarcat wrote:Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

For the purposes of this resolution, the term "war correspondent" is defined as:

1. a journalist who reports details from a firsthand perspective in a war zone
Realizing there is currently no legislation in place to protect war correspondents.,

Knowing that the previous legislation concerning the safety of war correspondents was rightfully struck out null and void.,

Understanding that correspondents do not have legal immunity and can be either swayed by personal bias, a third-party, or ignorance of the law to commit unlawful acts,

Herebyimposes the following regulations,

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, "war correspondent" as a journalist who reports firsthand from a warzone and without aiding or partaking in the conflict,

Mandates that all war correspondents be marked as such and requires their press affiliation to be visible,

12. Militant fighters may not fire upon, assault, or otherwise attack a war correspondent physically.
Bans combatants from firing upon, assaulting or otherwise attacking a war correspondent physically,

23. Militant bodies may not take a war correspondent as a prisoner of war under any circumstances unless they violate any of the regulations that apply to their actions and behavior, and only if specified in said regulation.
Prohibits militant bodies from taking a war correspondent as a prisoner of war unless they violate the regulations that apply to their actions and behaviour, and only if specified in said regulation,

34. Militant officials may not bribe a war correspondent or threaten them with violence to influence the correspondents actions. Furthermore, a correspondent may not accept a bribe of any sort or they will be subject to prosecution, either by their home country's federal court, an international court, or both depending on the size of the bribe and seriousness of the reason for said bribe.
Forbids militant officials from bribing a war correspondent or threaten them with violence to influence the correspondents actions, and further forbids a war correspondent from soliciting or accepting bribes,

45. Militants may not otherwise hinder a war correspondents ability to report the details of the ongoing conflict. Correspondents are allowed to question officers to aid their pursuit of journalism as long as the questions are purely official and non-invasive. However, militants are permitted not to take questions and otherwise ignore and/or evacuate correspondents when there a severe threat to the area, whether that is bombardment, a siege, or some attack of that caliber.
Clarifies that while war correspondents in their work must have leeway to report and conduct interviews, military officials remain under no obligation to answer,

56. Militant groups are not permitted to announce the presence of war correspondents directly to the enemy, as a defense against the use of correspondents as de facto immunity to attack.
Further clarifies that employing war correspondents by militant groups as defence against attacks invalidates their protected status under the definition.
Understanding that correspondents do not have legal immunity and can be either swayed by personal bias, a third-party, or ignorance of the law to commit unlawful acts.
Therefore;

1. War correspondents may not aid any belligerent taking part in the conflict they are reporting in any way. Militants are allowed to take correspondents as prisoners of war if this clause is violated and they are to be treated as any other militant POW.

2. If a war correspondent aligned with a side in the conflict but is not engaging as an active belligerent, either through being a government employee or working for an agency from the same nation, they are required to wear a distinguishing uniform that makes it clear they are alligned with that side. Enemy soldiers may not use that uniform as a basis for attack; therefore, it must also be distinguishable the wearer is a war correspondent and not a combatant. Failure to comply with this clause is punishable by prosecution in an international or federal court.

3. In the case of an active siege or prolonged attack, correspondents must either be at least 0.8 kilometres away from active gunfire.

"As you can probably see, we have made quite a few revisions to the language, and we have moved some things around. Most significant in this revision, though, is the neutrality is moved into the definition, which means you can avoid much of the fluff later on. We have also deleted all references to punishment and prosecution and which court must do it - frankly, that is micromanagement on a level far exceeding our care."

"Now, for more substantial response, we are generally in favour of increasing public access to information and protections for journalists. We don't have a perfect phrase for a general protection against attacking media broadcasters, but would like one built in early on. We also think a clarification on more ambiguous terms, such as 'militant bodies', is needed."


OOC:
Edit: Okay, just spotted how I failed in the numbering of the active clauses myself. Yay.

"Thank you for your input. We have not copied your version to a tee, but we have utilized your style and a lot of your terminology. After looking over both this draft, the previous repealed draft, and the repeal proposal, I believe the term to referenced, militant body, is understandable enough by WA members as it's used in those proposals, however I have done some cleanup on terms like militant fighters and several others."

OOC:

Liberimarcat wrote:Furthermore, if a war correspondent actively aids a belligerent in a conflict, clause 4 is to be struck null and void.

This sentence... doesn't work. As written, it would strike the clause 4 in this resolution if any war correspondent actively aids a belligerent.

Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC:

Liberimarcat wrote:Furthermore, if a war correspondent actively aids a belligerent in a conflict, clause 4 is to be struck null and void.

This sentence... doesn't work. As written, it would strike the clause 4 in this resolution if any war correspondent actively aids a belligerent.

Fixed.

If no one else has any comments I will submit this proposal by the end of today.

Please be consistent with your use of commas; as it stands, your prefatory clauses end in full stops but your operative clauses end in commas (apart from the last one, understandably).

Tinhampton wrote:Please be consistent with your use of commas; as it stands, your prefatory clauses end in full stops but your operative clauses end in commas (apart from the last one, understandably).

Fixed.

Liberimarcat wrote:If no one else has any comments I will submit this proposal by the end of today.

This rush will only serve your discredit.