[PASSED] Repeal: "Wartime Journalism Protection Act"

[Refuge Isle]

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming that wartime journalists provide an essential service to society and deserve the legal protections necessary to carry out their functions,

Concerned, however, that the protections provided in GAR#501 contain broad loopholes, which nations that wish to conceal their activities may exploit,

Perceiving that:

• A nation which seeks to carry out a military operation that would violate international law, such as the offensive use of chemical weaponry on an enemy nation, may repel reporters under the claim that their presence would interrupt an active combat situation.
• A nation which seeks to carry out a genocide of its newly conquered territories may shield those activities from journalists under the exception that such reporting would jeopardise the goals of its military efforts.

Observing that even in less extreme cases, a nation is able to strip reporters of their legal protection in situations where:

• A journalist is in possession of any object which the warring nation may identify or attest to be a weapon, for such a term is undefined.
• A warring nation deems any reporting of its military activity or other wartime information to be an act of espionage.

Believing that journalists who are adherents of a religion that carries ceremonial weaponry should not be forgotten by the World Assembly, or excluded from its protections in order to carry out their jobs,

Assessing that journalists are unable to carry self-defence weaponry into a war zone without losing their legal protections, rendering them vulnerable to the same brutalities the resolution sought to avoid when they may have otherwise defended themselves,

Resolving that the legislation must be repealed to allow for proper protections for journalists, as it blocks more comprehensive legislation which could rectify the present flaws,

Hereby Repeals GAR#501: "Wartime Journalism Protection Act"

The current GA resolution at vote appears like it will become law, but my concerns about it persist. Consequently, I've prepared this draft to iterate them.

Language improvements are a work in progress, commentary is encouraged

[Wallenburg]

A journalist's activities may be considered an act of espionage, which may include the reporting of any activity or situation that the warring nation may not enjoy having known.

This might also be improved as:

A warring state may deem a set of wartime information classified, and consider journalist's reporting of that information an act of espionage,

That's mostly just my writing style preferences though, the clause is perfectly understandable as-is.

[Kenmoria]

“The first bullet point of the ‘further observing’ clause seems dubious to me. A weapons has been defined in countless dictionaries. However, the key principle is good, so I would encourage a clause about this effectively banning journalists from carrying weapons for self-defence or religious reasons.”

[Wallenburg]

“The first bullet point of the ‘further observing’ clause seems dubious to me. A weapons has been defined in countless dictionaries. However, the key principle is good, so I would encourage a clause about this effectively banning journalists from carrying weapons for self-defence or religious reasons.”

The issue is that near anything can be a weapon, including a closed fist. Whether something is a weapon is not limited to its innate primary function, and member states can make use of that to encroach on the freedom of the press.

[Refuge Isle]

“The first bullet point of the ‘further observing’ clause seems dubious to me. A weapons has been defined in countless dictionaries. However, the key principle is good, so I would encourage a clause about this effectively banning journalists from carrying weapons for self-defence or religious reasons.”

If a journalist may have an item on their person to be use in their work, but that could also be considered as a weapon, that item becomes a liability for nullifying their legal protections. Suppose you have a long screwdriver to adjust a tripod. That screwdriver could be an issue in carry-on luggage, so it would also be an issue if the journalist becomes inspected by a government that doesn't want them there.

I'm open to adding an argument about self-defence case, though.

[Honeydewistania]

Beat me to the punch. I could support this.

[Flying Eagles]

Per our internal policy, you’ll need to provide us with a copy of the proposed replacement before you receive our support.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: should probably say something about how the resolution identifies a person as a journalist

[Refuge Isle]

OOC: should probably say something about how the resolution identifies a person as a journalist

I'm not sure I understand. Is there some issue with the journalist definitions?

At any rate, since yesterday I've added on a couple clauses per Kenmoria's suggestions

[Ardiveds]

OOC: should probably say something about how the resolution identifies a person as a journalist

I'm not sure I understand. Is there some issue with the journalist definitions?

At any rate, since yesterday I've added on a couple clauses per Kenmoria's suggestions

OOC: The resolution definesa 'wartime journalist' as a
'civilian wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press, and who is undertaking journalistic activities in a war zone.'

So here are a couple of issues IMO:

1. This doesn't say who actually defines the standard for this identification, the government, the press or the individual.

2. Even if we assume a standard is set by the the government or the press, the person doesn't have to actually belong to the press, just identify as such. This means even if their identification is counterfeit, the nation has to acknowledge them as a wartime journalist as per this resolution because they still are a 'civilian wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press'.

[Refuge Isle]

I'm not sure I understand. Is there some issue with the journalist definitions?

At any rate, since yesterday I've added on a couple clauses per Kenmoria's suggestions

OOC: The resolution definesa 'wartime journalist' as a
'civilian wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press, and who is undertaking journalistic activities in a war zone.'

So here are a couple of issues IMO:

1. This doesn't say who actually defines the standard for this identification, the government, the press or the individual.

2. Even if we assume a standard is set by the the government or the press, the person doesn't have to actually belong to the press, just identify as such. This means even if their identification is counterfeit, the nation has to acknowledge them as a wartime journalist as per this resolution because they still are a 'civilian wearing clearly visible identification that identifies them as a member of the press'.

I actually think this is one of the stronger points in the target resolution, because there is at least an effort to define the subject in a way that is relatively straightforward. IMO the onus is on the host nation to determine if a reporter's credentials are counterfeit or fraudulent, and that topic may be beyond the scope of this repeal.

[Araraukar]

IMO the onus is on the host nation to determine if a reporter's credentials are counterfeit or fraudulent, and that topic may be beyond the scope of this repeal.

OOC: Oh, so militaries can decide all press credentials are fraudulent and not allow any journalists into the warzone? Well, then the target doesn't need to be repealed as it's useless.

[Refuge Isle]

IMO the onus is on the host nation to determine if a reporter's credentials are counterfeit or fraudulent, and that topic may be beyond the scope of this repeal.

OOC: Oh, so militaries can decide all press credentials are fraudulent and not allow any journalists into the warzone? Well, then the target doesn't need to be repealed as it's useless.

A nation checking that reporters may be considered such under #501, and a nation deciding that no reporter could fit the bill is certainly some false equivalency. In either event, it's no concern of mine because "any person could be a terrorist posing as a member of the press," isn't an angle I'm particularly interested to pursue.

[All Countryhumans]

Boiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[Graintfjall]

“Though it probably would not affect our position on the repeal, is it your intention to draft or support some piece of replacement legislation, or merely to allow individual nations to restore the protections the resolution removes through their own processes?”

-- Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir
Economic Advisor to the Græntfjall WA Mission

[Refuge Isle]

“Though it probably would not affect our position on the repeal, is it your intention to draft or support some piece of replacement legislation, or merely to allow individual nations to restore the protections the resolution removes through their own processes?”

-- Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir
Economic Advisor to the Græntfjall WA Mission

As I am aware, there is interest in replacing this legislation by the original author, should this repeal be successful. I don't find it to be my place to intervene so long as that is the case. However, given the loopholes around the few protections this provides and the way this dissuades journalists from defending themselves should they come under attack in an already insecure territory, it would be a benefit to repeal this in either case. It's my assessment that journalists are worse off now than where they started.

If there isn't any more commentary on the draft contents, I'll be submitting this soon.

[Shankaslovakia]

Forget about the loopholes for a moment. It is absurd that people think journalists are entitled to subvert my war efforts with their bolshevik propaganda. I should be more than allowed to hang these dissenters on the spot, for the sake of Shankaslovkia's stability. Our excellent state media is more than capable of providing citizens with all of the information they need. How foolish to "protect" any other journalists apart from our own. Complete lunacy indeed.

[Wallenburg]

Forget about the loopholes for a moment. It is absurd that people think journalists are entitled to subvert my war efforts with their bolshevik propaganda. I should be more than allowed to hang these dissenters on the spot, for the sake of Shankaslovkia's stability. Our excellent state media is more than capable of providing citizens with all of the information they need. How foolish to "protect" any other journalists apart from our own. Complete lunacy indeed.

Hangings are functionally impossible given restrictions imposed by WA resolutions.

[Marsadia]

Forget about the loopholes for a moment. It is absurd that people think journalists are entitled to subvert my war efforts with their bolshevik propaganda. I should be more than allowed to hang these dissenters on the spot, for the sake of Shankaslovkia's stability. Our excellent state media is more than capable of providing citizens with all of the information they need. How foolish to "protect" any other journalists apart from our own. Complete lunacy indeed.

100% agree with the theory. Why are my soldiers, who are out there literally risking their lives; having to make decisions as to whether some individual on the other side is a member of that nations media? It’s absurd. This is war, not some violent protest. Why should I care about the media of other nations, who can use footage to further propaganda and misrepresent what is happening?

Finally, why the hell should I let some foreign national that we are at war with, film my nations technology and tactics? It’s idiotic! If you want to cover a war, fine, but you take your own life in your own hands and the protection of it is up to your own armed forces, not mine!!!!

[Foril]

“Though it probably would not affect our position on the repeal, is it your intention to draft or support some piece of replacement legislation, or merely to allow individual nations to restore the protections the resolution removes through their own processes?”

-- Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir
Economic Advisor to the Græntfjall WA Mission

As I am aware, there is interest in replacing this legislation by the original author, should this repeal be successful. I don't find it to be my place to intervene so long as that is the case. However, given the loopholes around the few protections this provides and the way this dissuades journalists from defending themselves should they come under attack in an already insecure territory, it would be a benefit to repeal this in either case. It's my assessment that journalists are worse off now than where they started.

If there isn't any more commentary on the draft contents, I'll be submitting this soon.

For the record, yes, I would be interested in drafting a replacement draft if this is repealed.

[Refuge Isle]

As I am aware, there is interest in replacing this legislation by the original author, should this repeal be successful. I don't find it to be my place to intervene so long as that is the case. However, given the loopholes around the few protections this provides and the way this dissuades journalists from defending themselves should they come under attack in an already insecure territory, it would be a benefit to repeal this in either case. It's my assessment that journalists are worse off now than where they started.

If there isn't any more commentary on the draft contents, I'll be submitting this soon.

For the record, yes, I would be interested in drafting a replacement draft if this is repealed.

I wish you the best of luck should it come to be necessary. Though we may disagree with this resolution, I hope that you don't take this vote with personal offence, for none is intended.

The proposal has been submitted at this time.

[Foril]

I’ll just throw this out here: if the nation doesn’t decide what is espionage, what is a weapon (etc), this whole repeal would have two clauses left, one of which doesn’t make any sense (the religious weapons one)

[Ardiveds]

I’ll just throw this out here: if the nation doesn’t decide what is espionage, what is a weapon (etc), this whole repeal would have two clauses left, one of which doesn’t make any sense (the religious weapons one)

OOC: the religious weapon one isn't total nonsense. I know of atleast one religion (sikhism) that mandates the carrying of ceremonial weapons.

[Refuge Isle]

I’ll just throw this out here: if the nation doesn’t decide what is espionage, what is a weapon (etc), this whole repeal would have two clauses left, one of which doesn’t make any sense (the religious weapons one)

To put your quote another way "If my resolution did not have the flaws, the repeal would have no content." Which...is typically how that works.

In any event, between all the times a nation may strip a reporter of their legal protections, particularly claiming they "interrupt active combat situations" or "jeopardise military efforts", this would account for nearly all types of reporting, and thereby grant no protection at all. That's a substantial flaw, and presumably the other clause you implied.

Why would the right to make a determination on those claims be left to the state whose activities ought to be reported on? Further, if a warring nation reserves the right to use these exemptions broadly, who have you aimed to protect journalists from? Certainly it wasn't brigands or unaffiliated militants, for journalists' ability to defend themselves from those groups have already been revoked.

[Tinhampton]

Resolving that [GA#501] must be repealed to allow for proper protections for journalists, as it blocks more comprehensive legislation which could rectify the present flaws,

Where's the replacement?