[Draft] Repeal "Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism"

[Greater Cesnica]

The General Assembly,

Cognizant that GAR #554 "Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism" was written with good intentions, and covered an area that has needed international legislative attention,

Noting, however, that GAR #554's problematic wording compromises the integrity and benevolent intent behind it,

Observing that Article 1(c)'s definition of "espionage" is susceptible to abuse by malicious third parties, as this definition fails to prevent acts of espionage being committed by journalists for the purposes of benefitting third parties not directly involved in a conflict,

Further observing that GAR #554 fails to define what exactly would constitute the upholding of international law, which would grant journalists wishing to carry out espionage a broad license to circumvent this resolution,

Concerned that Article 2(b) specifically permits "all journalism" that does not fall under the definition of "espionage", which would permit journalism that otherwise would be considered illegal without this provision being in force,

Dismayed that GAR #554 fails to prevent non-state actors from detaining journalists or carrying out any other action prohibited in Article 3,

Uncomfortable with Article 1(b), which through the usage of the condition "operating independent of any belligerent faction" denies the protections of GAR #554 to state or public media entities of one or more belligerent factions engaging in journalism in or near a conflict zone; as the inexplicable denial of such protections fails to appreciate that state or public broadcasters often report on conflicts without attempting to push propaganda or otherwise carry out services for one particular side of said conflict,

Disquieted by the fact that Article 1(b) may be interpreted in a such manner so as to deny non-state or public broadcasters which are affiliated with a particular belligerent party from the protections of GAR #554, which would affect the ability of private entities based or operating from a belligerent faction to report from within a conflict zone where said belligerent faction is engaged in combat,

Believing that such flaws are significant, and do a disservice to the resolution's mandate; and that better legislation in this area can be written,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #554 "Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism".

[Greater Cesnica]

The General Assembly,

Cognizant that GAR #554 "Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism" was written with good intentions, and covered an area that has needed international legislative attention,

Noting, however, that GAR #554's problematic wording compromises the integrity and benevolent intent behind it,

Observing that Article 1(c)'s definition of "espionage" is susceptible to abuse by malicious third parties, as this definition fails to prevent acts of espionage being committed by journalists for the purposes of benefitting third parties not directly involved in a conflict,

Further observing that GAR #554 fails to define what exactly would constitute the upholding of international law, which would grant journalists wishing to carry out espionage a broad license to circumvent this resolution,

Concerned that Article 2(b) specifically permits "all journalism" that does not fall under the definition of "espionage", which would permit journalism that otherwise would be considered illegal without this provision being in force,

Dismayed that GAR #554 fails to prevent non-state actors from detaining journalists or carrying out any other action prohibited in Article 3,

Believing that such flaws are significant, and do a disservice to the resolution's mandate; and that better legislation in this area can be written,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #554 "Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism".

Draft created.

The General Assembly,

Cognizant that GAR #554 "Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism" was written with good intentions, and covered an area that has needed international legislative attention,

Noting, however, that GAR #554's problematic wording compromises the integrity and benevolent intent behind it,

Observing that Article 1(c)'s definition of "espionage" is susceptible to abuse by malicious third parties, as this definition fails to prevent acts of espionage being committed by journalists for the purposes of benefitting third parties not directly involved in a conflict,

Further observing that GAR #554 fails to define what exactly would constitute the upholding of international law, which would grant journalists wishing to carry out espionage a broad license to circumvent this resolution,

Concerned that Article 2(b) specifically permits "all journalism" that does not fall under the definition of "espionage", which would permit journalism that otherwise would be considered illegal without this provision being in force,

Dismayed that GAR #554 fails to prevent non-state actors from detaining journalists or carrying out any other action prohibited in Article 3,

Uncomfortable with Article 1(b), which through the usage of the condition "operating independent of any belligerent faction" denies the protections of GAR #554 to state or public media entities of one or more belligerent factions engaging in journalism in or near a conflict zone; as the inexplicable denial of such protections fails to appreciate that state or public broadcasters often report on conflicts without attempting to push propaganda or otherwise carry out services for one particular side of said conflict,

Disquieted by the fact that Article 1(b) may be interpreted in a such manner so as to deny non-state or public broadcasters which are affiliated with a particular belligerent party from the protections of GAR #554, which would affect the ability of private entities based or operating from a belligerent faction to report from within a conflict zone where said belligerent faction is engaged in combat,

Believing that such flaws are significant, and do a disservice to the resolution's mandate; and that better legislation in this area can be written,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #554 "Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism".

Added points about Article 1(b)'s adverse impact on the ability of public, state, or private media entities' ability to report on a conflict from a conflict zone.

The General Assembly,

Cognizant that GAR #554 "Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism" was written with good intentions, and covered an area that has needed international legislative attention,

Noting, however, that GAR #554's problematic wording compromises the integrity and benevolent intent behind it,

Observing that Article 1(c)'s definition of "espionage" is susceptible to abuse by malicious third parties, as this definition fails to prevent acts of espionage being committed by journalists for the purposes of benefitting third parties not directly involved in a conflict,

Further observing that GAR #554 fails to define what exactly would constitute the upholding of international law, which would grant journalists wishing to carry out espionage a broad license to circumvent this resolution,

Concerned that Article 2(b) specifically permits "all journalism" that does not fall under the definition of "espionage", which would permit journalism that otherwise would be considered illegal without this provision being in force,

Dismayed that GAR #554 fails to prevent non-state actors from detaining journalists or carrying out any other action prohibited in Article 3,

Uncomfortable with Article 1(b), which through the usage of the condition "operating independent of any belligerent faction" denies the protections of GAR #554 to state or public media entities of one or more belligerent factions engaging in journalism in or near a conflict zone; as the inexplicable denial of such protections fails to appreciate that state or public broadcasters often report on conflicts without attempting to push propaganda or otherwise carry out services for one particular side of said conflict,

Disquieted by the fact that Article 1(b) may be interpreted in a such manner so as to deny non-state or public broadcasters which are affiliated with a particular belligerent party from the protections of GAR #554, which would affect the ability of private entities based or operating from a belligerent faction to report from within a conflict zone where said belligerent faction is engaged in combat,

Adamant that journalists should have access to weaponry such as sidearms in a conflict zone to defend themselves, especially against non-state actors, which Article 2(c) prohibits,

Believing that such flaws are significant, and do a disservice to the resolution's mandate; and that better legislation in this area can be written,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #554 "Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism".

Point about journalists not having the means to defend themselves against non-state actors.

[Greater Cesnica]

As there is a fairly high probability of the target resolution passing right now, it's prudent to keep this here. If there's incorrect points made in my draft, please bring them up.

Also, ideally I'd like to see this replaced in the event my repeal is successful. Refuge Isle covered an area where legislation was needed, and besides the definition flaws mostly nailed what needed to be covered.

[Imperium Anglorum]

No objection to repeal in principle.

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "Our delegation finds itself in agreement with the arguments put forward by this repeal proposal. While we applaud the intent of the future GAR #554, we are unconvinced by the way its intent has been executed, and find it lacking. It is our hope there will be a solid and comprehensive resolution on this matter, yet our delegation believes that the future target of your repeal is not that resolution. You'll have our support once it comes to a vote.

As one of our befriended nations in Forest had stated, the future GAR #554 approaches the subject of modern warfare fairly naively. And as another noted, the definition of Act of Warfare is also fairly narrow. According to Clause 1.d, the destruction of a civilian structure through bombardment would not constitute an act of warfare, nor would the intentional killing of civilians be by combatants. In our opinion this is a grave oversight of this resolution proposal, as 'act of warfare' is much broader than the three conditions the authoring delegation has provided."

[Refuge Isle]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen:"And as another noted, the definition of Act of Warfare is also fairly narrow. According to Clause 1.d, the destruction of a civilian structure through bombardment would not constitute an act of warfare, nor would the intentional killing of civilians be by combatants. In our opinion this is a grave oversight of this resolution proposal, as 'act of warfare' is much broader than the three conditions the authoring delegation has provided."

I think you've grossly misunderstood how the definition of "act of warfare" is used. The definition does not apply to combatants, it applies to journalists. By what capacity would a journalist be able to engage in the bombardment of a structure? The intentional killing of civilians is called murder and there is nothing that prohibits journalists from being arrested on those grounds.

[Greater Cesnica]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen:"And as another noted, the definition of Act of Warfare is also fairly narrow. According to Clause 1.d, the destruction of a civilian structure through bombardment would not constitute an act of warfare, nor would the intentional killing of civilians be by combatants. In our opinion this is a grave oversight of this resolution proposal, as 'act of warfare' is much broader than the three conditions the authoring delegation has provided."

I think you've grossly misunderstood how the definition of "act of warfare" is used. The definition does not apply to combatants, it applies to journalists. By what capacity would a journalist be able to engage in the bombardment of a structure? The intentional killing of civilians is called murder and there is nothing that prohibits journalists from being arrested on those grounds.

"I find myself in agreement with the delegation from Refuge Isle on this particular point."

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen:"And as another noted, the definition of Act of Warfare is also fairly narrow. According to Clause 1.d, the destruction of a civilian structure through bombardment would not constitute an act of warfare, nor would the intentional killing of civilians be by combatants. In our opinion this is a grave oversight of this resolution proposal, as 'act of warfare' is much broader than the three conditions the authoring delegation has provided."

I think you've grossly misunderstood how the definition of "act of warfare" is used. The definition does not apply to combatants, it applies to journalists. By what capacity would a journalist be able to engage in the bombardment of a structure? The intentional killing of civilians is called murder and there is nothing that prohibits journalists from being arrested on those grounds.

Vyn Nysen: "I stand corrected in that regard. I was incorrectly under the impression "act of warfare" pertained the combatants in question, not the journalists. My apologies for this misconception. Nonetheless, our previous commentary remains standing, as our delegation finds the proposal's general approach to warfare somewhat naive, or perhaps better said, too trusting of good intentions."

[Uan aa Boa]

The target resolution reads to me as though in the event of an invasion defending armed forces would be required to allow journalists working for media outlets in the invading nation to move freely among their positions publicly broadcasting what they see (which wouldn't be defined as espionage since it wouldn't be "covert"). This seems exceptionally generous to invaders. I'd be happy to see this repealed.

[Greater Cesnica]

The target resolution reads to me as though in the event of an invasion defending armed forces would be required to allow journalists working for media outlets in the invading nation to move freely among their positions publicly broadcasting what they see (which wouldn't be defined as espionage since it wouldn't be "covert"). This seems exceptionally generous to invaders. I'd be happy to see this repealed.

"Ambassador, I would have to say that the delegation from Refuge Isle covered that particular issue correctly. The resolution prohibits access to military facilities already, which is pretty much the only reasonable restriction I feel should be applied to a conflict journalist's freedom of movement within a conflict zone. In particular, I find that allowing militaries the ability to consider any particular action or area to be off-limits for conflict journalists to cover would be particularly dangerous. If [x] nation is committing war crimes, in a particular area, conflict journalists must have the freedom under international law to cover it."

[Greater Cesnica]

"As my attempts at securing a replacement written from the delegation of Refuge Isle have failed, the Greater Cesnican delegation will have to author its own replacement."

[Ardiveds]

The target resolution reads to me as though in the event of an invasion defending armed forces would be required to allow journalists working for media outlets in the invading nation to move freely among their positions publicly broadcasting what they see (which wouldn't be defined as espionage since it wouldn't be "covert"). This seems exceptionally generous to invaders. I'd be happy to see this repealed.

"Ambassador, I would have to say that the delegation from Refuge Isle covered that particular issue correctly. The resolution prohibits access to military facilities already, which is pretty much the only reasonable restriction I feel should be applied to a conflict journalist's freedom of movement within a conflict zone. In particular, I find that allowing militaries the ability to consider any particular action or area to be off-limits for conflict journalists to cover would be particularly dangerous. If [x] nation is committing war crimes, in a particular area, conflict journalists must have the freedom under international law to cover it."

OOC: Think back to ww2. Wouldn't it be a bad idea to let a reporter from nazi germany report literally anything about the british ghost army?

[WayNeacTia]

"As my attempts at securing a replacement written from the delegation of Refuge Isle have failed, the Greater Cesnican delegation will have to author its own replacement."

Or we could go with the better option of simply not repealing a perfectly functional resolution based on a lack of dictionary definitions?

[Wallenburg]

It is extremely foolish to want the press armed in the midst of conflict. To carry a weapon and have the capacity to use it makes you a military target, and indistinguishable from a soldier masquerading as a journalist.

[Greater Cesnica]

It is extremely foolish to want the press armed in the midst of conflict. To carry a weapon and have the capacity to use it makes you a military target, and indistinguishable from a soldier masquerading as a journalist.

"Our Delegation believes that the threat journalists face from non-state actors alone in war zones may justify the carrying of defensive implements such as firearms and other pertinent weaponry. The prohibition provided by the target resolution against this practice, in our opinion, harms more journalists than it aids."

[Tinfect]

"Our Delegation believes that the threat journalists face from non-state actors alone in war zones may justify the carrying of defensive implements such as firearms and other pertinent weaponry. The prohibition provided by the target resolution against this practice, in our opinion, harms more journalists than it aids."

"Armed personnel in a conflict area may be justifiably assumed to be combatants, Ambassador. Indeed, when conflicts involve non-state-actors making use of civilian clothing, it is quite easy to mistake them for the enemy. Permitting journalists to carry weapons does nothing but put them in the line of fire.

In any case, you do not seem to understand that many Member-States prohibit the civilian use of firearms altogether; an armed civilian in a conflict area would be considered a criminal, even if they are identified as a non-combatant."

[Greater Cesnica]

"Our Delegation believes that the threat journalists face from non-state actors alone in war zones may justify the carrying of defensive implements such as firearms and other pertinent weaponry. The prohibition provided by the target resolution against this practice, in our opinion, harms more journalists than it aids."

"Armed personnel in a conflict area may be justifiably assumed to be combatants, Ambassador. Indeed, when conflicts involve non-state-actors making use of civilian clothing, it is quite easy to mistake them for the enemy. Permitting journalists to carry weapons does nothing but put them in the line of fire.

In any case, you do not seem to understand that many Member-States prohibit the civilian use of firearms altogether; an armed civilian in a conflict area would be considered a criminal, even if they are identified as a non-combatant."

"We are cognizant that many member-states prohibit civilian ownership and use of firearms completely. Carrying firearms would only be a legitimate option in jurisdictions where such possession would be permitted in the first place."

[Wallenburg]

It is extremely foolish to want the press armed in the midst of conflict. To carry a weapon and have the capacity to use it makes you a military target, and indistinguishable from a soldier masquerading as a journalist.

"Our Delegation believes that the threat journalists face from non-state actors alone in war zones may justify the carrying of defensive implements such as firearms and other pertinent weaponry. The prohibition provided by the target resolution against this practice, in our opinion, harms more journalists than it aids."

"It is painfully obvious that not a single person from your delegation has actually been to a combat zone. Whatever 'defensive' arms journalists might carry will be next to useless against an organized attack by combatants. Carrying small arms also communicates to whomever sees you that you have something worth protecting with deadly force. Most likely, an armed journalist will find their throat slit in their sleep if they are not already dead from being mistaken for a disguised combatant. You are quite simply arguing in favor of the injury and death of more journalists."

[Greater Cesnica]

"Our Delegation believes that the threat journalists face from non-state actors alone in war zones may justify the carrying of defensive implements such as firearms and other pertinent weaponry. The prohibition provided by the target resolution against this practice, in our opinion, harms more journalists than it aids."

"It is painfully obvious that not a single person from your delegation has actually been to a combat zone. Whatever 'defensive' arms journalists might carry will be next to useless against an organized attack by combatants. Carrying small arms also communicates to whomever sees you that you have something worth protecting with deadly force. Most likely, an armed journalist will find their throat slit in their sleep if they are not already dead from being mistaken for a disguised combatant. You are quite simply arguing in favor of the injury and death of more journalists."

McCooley bites his lip. Careful... There's certain things you don't bring up in the chambers... He glances at his inner wrist, from where he can very faintly see the outline of that cursed mark. How shall I approach this?

"I would encourage the Wallenburgian Delegation to not throw around unfounded claims about our Delegation." There you go. Now, on to the policy.

"Anyways, you know what? You're right. Journalists do have something worth protecting with deadly force, other than their lives. Their reporting. They are more often than not targeted specifically because they shed light on the depraved horrors that occur in war zones. It may not be the militaries of member states, bound by international law, that would be targeting them; but rather non-state actors not even nominally involved in warfare. Street criminals come to mind."

He pauses for a sip of water before continuing. "A compromise could be made, I suppose- journalists only being permitted to carry weapons that are easily concealable and not visible to armed combatants. What do you say?"

[Honeydewistania]

Adamant that journalists should have access to weaponry such as sidearms in a conflict zone to defend themselves, especially against non-state actors, which Article 2(c) prohibits,

OOC: No thanks.

[Greater Cesnica]

Adamant that journalists should have access to weaponry such as sidearms in a conflict zone to defend themselves, especially against non-state actors, which Article 2(c) prohibits,

OOC: No thanks.

OOC: More and more journalists are resorting to such measures to defend against non-state actors IRL, in places like Central America and the Middle East. I suppose such access could be restricted to concealable sidearms.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

We echo other delegations in our opposition to the concept of arming so-called "journalists" and encourage the author to drop that line of argument from repeal and to not include it in any replacement.

[Greater Cesnica]

We echo other delegations in our opposition to the concept of arming so-called "journalists" and encourage the author to drop that line of argument from repeal and to not include it in any replacement.

"As stated earlier, there are instances where journalists having the capacity to defend themselves from imminent harm would become quite useful. The concerns about being mistaken for an enemy combatant can be mitigated through allowing only concealed weaponry."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

We echo other delegations in our opposition to the concept of arming so-called "journalists" and encourage the author to drop that line of argument from repeal and to not include it in any replacement.

"As stated earlier, there are instances where journalists having the capacity to defend themselves from imminent harm would become quite useful. The concerns about being mistaken for an enemy combatant can be mitigated through allowing only concealed weaponry."

It is, of course, your resolution, ambassador, but we urge you to reconsider if this is really the hill you wish to die upon. Opposed on that basis.

[Refuge Isle]

We echo other delegations in our opposition to the concept of arming so-called "journalists" and encourage the author to drop that line of argument from repeal and to not include it in any replacement.

"As stated earlier, there are instances where journalists having the capacity to defend themselves from imminent harm would become quite useful. The concerns about being mistaken for an enemy combatant can be mitigated through allowing only concealed weaponry."

This isn't really how it works, of course, for the reasons that Wallenburg and others already expressed. In an actual conflict zone, weapons of the calibre you're interested in having will cause no practical effect in protecting journalists' lives. If they are gunned down by militants, a sidearm is not going to make the difference between life and death. It will hardly accomplish anything at all. All the while, the presence of weaponry on individuals in occupations which have no reason to possess them creates undue risk. Even concealed, or perhaps especially concealed, an armed journalist (which is generally unusual) may be believed a militant or a spy. Armed journalists' lives are placed in jeopardy through their own insecurity, and the consequences this may lead to in tense political situations are incalculable, depending who a state believes (if wrongfully) has infiltrated them.

The strongest protections that a journalist can have are not derived from a sidearm, which lends itself to confusable situations and volatility. It is not derived from journalists' often-sought attempt to hire mercenaries (who may indeed be locally known militants) in order to bring them closer to the front. It is derived from the journalist operating clearly marked as such, protected by known and respected international law, or blending among civilian populations in situations where journalists believe they may be targeted, but wish to operate anyway. Both of those situations are dangerous and harm journalists' safety more than they help, so both are banned.

This repeal attempt is disappointing for a variety of reasons, but the foremost in my mind is that GAR#554 is well-sourced by actual research studies in this field. This research raising questions about how to deal with the complex topic of upholding the safety of journalism in warzones. A journalist may be sent to places with a variety of situations, and sent by a variety of sources whose nature is a strong component of the journalists' role. For example, you criticise the lack of protections for state media, but state media are often sent as a part of the propaganda effort of a war. This is not a criticism, it is a fact of life. States embroiled in conflict wish to show how well they are doing and drum up support if they're not. Even neutral reporting accomplishes this goal by bringing more information about a state's forces at work to its people. This is fine, I could not care less.

In practical terms, however, these individuals are often embedded with the militaries of the states they are with, or they use the the state's resources and logistics to get them that access, which third parties and private companies do not have. In real life they are a different classification of reporter with different protections. My resolution does not focus on that group, as the text would have become too complicated or verbose by combining the two concepts, and the difference in the two situations' circumstances should be treated differently. You may address this subject in a future, supplementary, resolution which I will likely not agree with. But in this repeal, the angles you are using to attempt this repeal only demonstrate your lack of research and understanding on the topic. The things you are wishing to see in place of the current text is legislation that IRL research has determined is a detriment to the cause. Plainly put, what you are doing is wrong.