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

[Sedgistan]

Ambassador Scott "We decided to work on this repeal of GAR#554, as we judged that GAR#554 was a poorly written resolution. After consulting a few fellow ambassadors, the Apatosaurusian delegation will be posting this draft to the public. We will be co-authoring a replacement with the Delegation from Tinhampton."

OOC: Replacement can be found here.

The General Assembly,

Respecting the intent of GAR#554 [resolution=GA#554]“Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism”[/resolution] to protect journalists operating in conflict zones, but

Disappointed that the resolution contains several significant and easily exploitable loopholes, and in some cases blocks further legislation to resolve these issues, rendering it inadequate for continued enforcement by this august body,

Highlighting the loopholes present due to the substandard and flawed definition of a “conflict journalist” in Clause 1b, which:

1. by requiring that conflict journalists be “employed in providing journalism” in order to be included in the definition, can easily be interpreted as excluding journalists that do not engage in journalism due to an employment contract (for example, freelance or citizen journalists), thus failing to protect significant portions of journalists, and
2. includes the hazy requirement that a conflict journalist must “[operate] independent of any belligerent faction” in order to be included in the definition, which is vague enough that member-states can easily claim that journalists nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as non-government news organisations headquartered in a belligerent nation during an international war, are exempt from the protections in the resolution,

Alarmed that the definition of an "act of espionage" in Clause 1c excludes acts that should be considered espionage but where third parties, rather than "belligerents", benefit from these acts; clause 2b then forces member-states to allow conflict journalists to carry out "any journalism that is not an act of espionage from or near a conflict zone", thus blocking further regulation, whether national or within this institution, to prohibit espionage that does not fit into 2b's definition, if it is done via conflict journalism,

Bothered that Clause 3 fails to protect conflict journalists from entities that are not member-states or military entities, such as armed civilians, betraying that clause's intent by allowing such actors to carry out those acts which it prohibits member-states from perpetrating, and

Concluding that, while the intent of GAR#554 is meritorious and a topic undoubtedly deserving of attention by this institution, it contains several issues and loopholes that cause it to be too poor to remain in force,

Hereby Repeals GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism”.

[Apatosaurus]

Character count: 2469

Target resolution for the sake of convenience

The General Assembly,

Respecting the intent of GAR#554 [resolution=GA#554]“Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism”[/resolution] to protect journalists operating in conflict zones, but

Disappointed that the resolution contains several significant and easily exploitable loopholes, and in some cases blocks further legislation to resolve these issues, rendering it inadequate for continued enforcement by this august body,

Highlighting the loopholes present due to the substandard and flawed definition of a “conflict journalist”, which:

1. by requiring that conflict journalists be “employed in providing journalism”, can easily be interpreted as excluding journalists that do not engage in journalism due to an employment contract (for example, freelance or citizen journalists), thus failing to protect significant portions of journalists, and
2. includes the hazy requirement that a conflict journalist must “[operate] independent of any belligerent faction”, which is so vague that member-states can easily claim that journalists nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as non-government news organisations headquartered in a belligerent nation during an international war, are exempt from the protections in the resolution,

Alarmed that the definition of an "act of espionage" in Clause 1c excludes acts that should be considered espionage but where third parties, rather than "belligerents", benefit from these acts; clause 2b then forces member-states to allow conflict journalists to carry out "any journalism that is not an act of espionage from or near a conflict zone", thus blocking further regulation, whether national or within this institution, to prohibit espionage that does not fit into 2b's definition if it is done via conflict journalism,

Bothered that Clause 3 fails to protect conflict journalists from entities that are not member-states or military entities, such as armed civilians, betraying that Clause's intent by allowing such actors to carry out those acts which it prohibits member-states from perpetrating, and

Concluding that, while the intent of GAR#554 is meritorious and a topic undoubtedly deserving of attention by this institution, it contains several issues and loopholes that cause it to be too poor to remain in force,

Hereby Repeals GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism”.

The General Assembly,

Respecting the intent of GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism” to protect journalists operating in conflict zones, but

Disappointed that the resolution contains several significant and easily exploitable loopholes, and in some cases blocks further legislation to resolve these issues, rendering it inadequate for continued enforcement by this august body,

Highlighting the loopholes present due to the substandard and flawed definition of a “conflict journalist”, which:

1. by requiring that conflict journalists be “employed in providing journalism”, can easily be interpreted as excluding journalists that do not engage in journalism due to an employment contract (for example, freelance or citizen journalists), thus failing to protect significant portions of journalists, and
2. includes the hazy requirement that a conflict journalist must “[operate] independent of any belligerent faction”, which is so vague that member-states can easily claim that journalists nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as non-government news organisations headquartered in a belligerent nation during an international war, are exempt from the protections in the resolution,

Alarmed that the definition of an "act of espionage" in Clause 1c excludes acts that should be considered espionage but where third parties, rather than "belligerents", benefit from these acts; clause 2b then legalises "any journalism that is not an act of espionage from or near a conflict zone", thus blocking further regulation, whether national or within this institution, to prohibit espionage that does not fit into 2b's definition if it is done through "journalism ... from or near a conflict zone",

Bothered by Clause 3’s lack of protection for conflict journalists from groups other than member-states, such as armed civilians, allowing acts prohibited in Clause 3 for member-states to be perpetrated by entities that are not member-states or militaries, thus undermining the intent of Clause 3, and

Concluding that, while the intent of GAR#554 is meritorious and a topic undoubtedly deserving of attention by this institution, it contains several issues and loopholes that make it too poor to remain in force,

Hereby Repeals GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism”.

The General Assembly,

Respecting the intent of GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism” to protect journalists operating in conflict zones, but

Disappointed that the resolution contains several significant and easily exploitable loopholes, and in some cases blocks further legislation to resolve these issues, rendering it inadequate for continued enforcement by this august body,

Highlighting the loopholes present due to the substandard and flawed definition of a “conflict journalist”, which:

1. by requiring that conflict journalists be “employed in providing journalism”, can easily be interpreted as excluding journalists that do not engage in journalism due to an employment contract (for example, freelance or citizen journalists), and
2. includes the hazy requirement that a conflict journalist must “[operate] independent of any belligerent faction”, which is so vague that member-states can easily claim that journalists nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as non-government news organisations headquartered in a belligerent nation during an international war, are exempt from the protections in the resolution,

Frustrated by the inadequate definition of an “act of espionage” in Clause 1c which, by requiring that a “belligerent faction” benefit from the act to be counted as an "act of espionage", excludes acts that should be considered espionage but where third parties, rather than "belligerents", benefit from said acts,

Alarmed that by legalising “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, Clause 2b blocks future legislation, whether national, international or within this institution, to further regulate espionage that does not fit into the poor definition present in Clause 1c,

Bothered by Clause 3’s lack of protection for conflict journalists from groups other than member-states, such as armed civilians, allowing acts prohibited in Clause 3 for member-states to be perpetrated by entities that are not member-states, thus undermining the intent of Clause 3,

Troubled by the fact that while the regulations within Clause 4 restrict the “kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target”, there are no protections against the detainment, harassment, physical harm or attack of conflict journalists by non-state or non-military entities as long as this does not result in the "kidnapping [or] murder" of said journalists, thereby allowing for the legal abuse of conflict journalists, and

Concluding that, while the intent of GAR#554 is meritorious and a topic undoubtedly deserving of attention by this institution, it contains several issues and loopholes that make it too poor to remain in force,

Hereby Repeals GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism”.

The General Assembly,

Respecting the intent of GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism” to protect journalists operating in conflict zones, but

Disappointed by the presence of several significant and easily exploitable loopholes throughout GAR#554 that render it inadequate for continued enforcement by this august body,

Highlighting the loopholes present due to the substandard and flawed definition of a “conflict journalist”, which:

1. by requiring that conflict journalists be “employed in providing journalism”, can easily be interpreted as excluding journalists that do not engage in journalism as a source of employment (e.g. unpaid or volunteer journalists), and
2. includes the hazy requirement that a conflict journalist must “[operate] independent of any belligerent faction”, allowing member-states to claim that journalists nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as non-government news organisations headquartered in a belligerent nation, are exempt from the provisions of GAR#554,

Frustrated by the inadequate definition of an “act of espionage”, which by requiring that a “belligerent faction” be benefitted by the act to be counted as an "act of espionage", allows third parties that are not “belligerents” to benefit from acts that should be considered espionage,

Aware that Clause 2b legalises “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, unwittingly forcing the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. public defamation or harassment),

Bothered by Clause 3’s lack of protection for conflict journalists from non-member state groups (for example armed civilians), even allowing for the specific targeting of conflict journalists by non-member-state entities while only needlessly endangering conflict journalists,

Troubled by the fact that while the regulations within Clause 4 restrict the “kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target”, they lack any specific protections against the harming of conflict journalists that does not necessarily result in the killing or kidnapping of said conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military, thereby allowing for the legal abuse of conflict journalists, and

Concluding that, while the intent of GAR#554 is meritorious and a topic undoubtedly deserving of attention by this institution, it introduces several inconsistencies and loopholes that make it too poorly written to remain in the books,

Hereby Repeals GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism”.

The General Assembly,

Lauding the intent of GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism” to protect journalists operating in warzones, but

Disappointed by the presence of several significant and easily exploitable loopholes throughout GAR#554 that render it unsuitable for continued use by this august body,

Highlighting the loopholes present within the blatantly flawed definition of a “conflict journalist”, which:

1. by requiring that they be “employed in providing journalism”, may, depending on interpretation, exclude journalists that do not engage in journalism as a source of employment (e.g. unpaid or volunteer journalists), and
2. has the vague requirement that they “[operate] independent of any belligerent faction”, allowing member-states to claim that any journalists that are nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as a news organisation based in a belligerent nation but that is not operated by said belligerent nation’s government, do not "[operate] independent of any belligerent faction" and thus render them exempt from the provisions of GAR#554 in practice,

Frustrated by the poor definition of an “act of espionage”, which allows third parties that are not “belligerents” to benefit from acts that should be considered espionage,

Aware that Clause 2b allows for “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, which forces the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. public defamation or harassment),

Annoyed by Clause 3’s lack of protection of conflict journalists from actors that are not necessarily member-states (e.g. armed civilians or terrorist groups), even allowing for the specific targeting of conflict journalists by non-member-state entities and needlessly endangering conflict journalists while not fulfilling the intent of Clause 3,

Troubled by the fact that while the regulation within Clause 4 restricts the “kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target”, this lacks any specific protection against the harming of conflict journalists that does not necessarily result in the killing or kidnapping of said conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military, which can even be exploited through the detainment or non-deadly harming of conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military without falling afoul of GAR#554,

Concluding that while the intent of GAR#554 is laudable, it contains several inconsistencies and loopholes that cause it to be too poorly written to remain in the books, and

Hoping for the passage of a high-quality replacement of GAR#554 that avoids falling into these loopholes in the future,

Hereby Repeals GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism”.

The General Assembly,

Lauding the intent of GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism” to protect journalists operating in warzones, but

Disappointed by the presence of several significant and easily exploitable loopholes throughout GAR#554 that render it unsuitable for continued use by this august body,

Highlighting the loopholes present within the blatantly flawed definition of a “conflict journalist”, which:

1. by requiring that they be “employed in providing journalism”, may, depending on interpretation, exclude journalists that do not engage in journalism as a source of employment (e.g. unpaid or volunteer journalists), and
2. has the vague requirement that they “[operate] independent of any belligerent faction”, allowing member-states to claim that any journalists that are nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as a news organisation based in a belligerent nation but that is not operated by said belligerent nation’s government, do not "[operate] independent of any belligerent faction" and thus render them exempt from the provisions of GAR#554,

Frustrated by the poor definition of an “act of espionage”, which allows third parties that are not “belligerents” to benefit from acts that should be considered espionage,

Aware that Clause 2b allows for “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, which forces the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. deliberate misinformation or public defamation and harassment),

Annoyed by Clause 3’s lack of protection of conflict journalists from actors that are not necessarily member-states (e.g. armed civilians or terrorist groups), even allowing for the specific targeting of conflict journalists by non-member-state entities and needlessly endangering conflict journalists while not fulfilling the intent of Clause 3,

Troubled by the fact that while the regulation within Clause 4 restricts the “kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target”, this lacks any specific protection against the harming of conflict journalists that does not necessarily result in the killing or kidnapping of said conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military, which can even be exploited through the detainment or non-deadly harming of conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military without falling afoul of GAR#554,

Concluding that while the intent of GAR#554 is laudable, it contains several inconsistencies and loopholes that cause it to be too poor to remain in the books, and

Hoping for the passage of a high-quality replacement of GAR#554 that avoids falling into these loopholes in the future,

Hereby Repeals GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism”.

The General Assembly,

Lauding the intent of GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism” to protect journalists operating in warzones, but

Disappointed by the presence of several significant and easily exploitable loopholes throughout GAR#554 that render it unsuitable for continued use by this august body,

Highlighting the loopholes present within the blatantly flawed definitions within Clause 1 of GAR#554, such as that of:

1. A “conflict journalist”, which uses the qualifier of “employed in providing journalism ...”, which excludes unpaid journalists or journalists that do not engage in journalism as a source of employment (e.g. volunteer and freelance journalists), and also has the vague requirement that they “[operate] independent of any belligerent faction”, allowing for member-states to claim that any journalists that are nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as a news organisation based in a belligerent nation but that is not operated by said belligerent nation’s government, do not "[operate] independent of any belligerent faction" and thus render them exempt from the provisions of GAR#554; and
2. An “act of espionage”, which, by requiring that a “belligerent faction” be benefitted by the act to be counted as an “act of espionage”, allows third parties that are not “belligerents” to benefit from acts that should be considered espionage;

Aware that Clause 2b allows for “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, which forces the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal, such as deliberate misinformation or public defamation and harassment,

Annoyed by Clause 3’s lack of protection of conflict journalists from actors that are not necessarily member-states (e.g. armed civilians or terrorist groups), even allowing for the specific targeting of conflict journalists by non-member-state entities, and needlessly endangering conflict journalists while not fulfilling the intent of Clause 3,

Displeased that Clause 2c, by prohibiting conflict journalists from carrying any weapons, implicitly prevents conflict journalists from using arms to defend themselves against hostile acts against them, which only reduces the safety of conflict journalists, going against the intent of GAR#554, and also amplifying the aforementioned issue regarding Clause 3,

Unnerved by the vagueness of Clause 2d, from which “[conflict journalists] are prohibited from ... soliciting the services of armed escorts and mercenaries” may be interpreted to prevent conflict journalists from receiving any sort of assistance from “armed escorts and mercenaries”, regardless of whether this assistance is entirely to solicit information regarding events for journalism,

Troubled by the fact that while the regulation within Clause 4 restricts the “kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target”, this lacks any specific protection against the harming of conflict journalists that does not necessarily result in the killing or kidnapping of said conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military, which can even be exploited through the detainment or non-deadly harming of conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military without falling afoul of GAR#554,

Concluding that while the intent of GAR#554 is laudable, it contains several inconsistencies and loopholes that cause it to be too poor to remain in the books, and

Hoping for the passage of a high-quality replacement of GAR#554 that avoids falling into these loopholes in the future,

Hereby Repeals GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism”.

[Minskiev]

Against as long as the Annoyed clause is included. That is absurd.

[Apatosaurus]

Against as long as the Annoyed clause is included. That is absurd.

How? Clause 3 of the target directly says (emphasis mine):

3. Prohibits member nations from:
a. disallowing conflict journalists access to a conflict zone and freedom of movement within it.
b. undertaking retaliatory action towards conflict journalists in response to unfavourable press coverage, or fear thereof.
c. detaining conflict journalists solely to limit their access to the conflict zone, or to delay their reporting.

I think it is obvious that non-member-state entities are not bound by that clause.

EDIT: After discussing with Minskiev on Discord, I still lean against removing the Annoyed clause but am happy to if further strong objections are raised.

[Apatosaurus]

New draft posted.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Highlighting the loopholes present within the blatantly flawed definition of a “conflict journalist”, which:
by requiring that they be “employed in providing journalism”, excludes journalists that do not engage in journalism as a source of employment (e.g. unpaid, volunteer or freelance journalists),

I don't think this is a fair criticism as written. Being "employed" does not necessarily mean you're paid by, or working for, a business/organization. Other definitions of the word "employed" include simply "occupied by," and "devoted or directed toward a particular activity." I think to avoid running afoul of the Honest Mistake Rule (as it's been interpreted...) the most you can say is that the wording is ambiguous, and some nations could interpret it as excluding journalists who are not compensated. Also freelance journalists are paid; they're just not affiliated with a particular media outlet and sell their work to the highest bidder. So you'll probably want to remove that example.

has the vague requirement that they “[operate] independent of any belligerent faction”, allowing member-states to claim that any journalists that are nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as a news organisation based in a belligerent nation but that is not operated by said belligerent nation’s government, do not "[operate] independent of any belligerent faction"

I simply don't think this is a fair criticism. You're talking about war and if journalists are even "nominally" dependent on the enemy I think there are legitimate military concerns with letting them have "access to a conflict zone and freedom of movement within it." Anyway, I think you can make a fair case for repeal without it, so I suggest removing it.

Frustrated by the similarly poor definition of an “act of espionage”, which, by requiring that a “belligerent faction” be benefitted by the act to be counted as an “act of espionage”, allows third parties that are not “belligerents” to benefit from acts that should be considered espionage;

Fair point, although I think you can make it more directly by striking some unnecessary language (suggested above). Your call.

Aware that Clause 2b allows for “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, which forces the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. deliberate misinformation or public defamation and harassment),

Meh. I'm a proponent of free speech so this argument isn't very persuasive to me. I don't find this argument persuasive but maybe others will.

Displeased that Clause 2c, by prohibiting conflict journalists from carrying any weapons, implicitly prevents conflict journalists from using arms to defend themselves against hostile acts against them, only reducing the safety of conflict journalists, going against the intent of GAR#554, and also amplifying the aforementioned issue regarding Clause 3,

This clause was part of a reasonable compromise. Journalist carrying weapons in a warzone are a present threat to service members. It's not fair to ask WA members to give all these protections to conflict journalists if you're going to allow the journalists to carry arms and pose a mortal threat to soldiers in the area. I don't find this argument persuasive.

Unnerved by the vagueness of Clause 2d, from which “[conflict journalists] are prohibited from ... soliciting the services of armed escorts and mercenaries” prevents conflict journalists from receiving any sort of assistance from “armed escorts and mercenaries”, regardless of whether this assistance is entirely for the purposes of journalism (e.g. to solicit information regarding events for journalism),

Same comment as above. If journalists are allowed to basically form little armed platoons they become mortal threats and it's not reasonable to ask member nations to give them a bunch of special protections. I'm not persuaded that prohibiting journalists from forming armed bands with their mercenary buddies is a flaw.

Troubled by the fact that while the regulation within Clause 4 restricts the “kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target”, this lacks any specific protection against the harming of conflict journalists that does not necessarily result in the killing or kidnapping of said conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military, which can even be exploited through the detainment or non-deadly harming of conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military without falling afoul of GAR#554,

If you want to provide greater protection to journalists without contradicting GAR#554, you can do so without repealing. As currently written, this is not a good reason to repeal. It's a good reason to write a new resolution called "Greater Protection for Journalists" or something. Also, you're a bit out on a limb here by suggesting that member nations could claim journalists were not a military target by delegating the task of targeting them to a non-member state or roaming gang or something. It's just hard for me to take that complaint seriously.

Those are my thoughts on the present draft.

[Apatosaurus]

-snip-

OOC: Will address when I get back home (in about 1 - 2 hours)

[Apatosaurus]

Highlighting the loopholes present within the blatantly flawed definition of a “conflict journalist”, which:
by requiring that they be “employed in providing journalism”, excludes journalists that do not engage in journalism as a source of employment (e.g. unpaid, volunteer or freelance journalists),

I don't think this is a fair criticism as written. Being "employed" does not necessarily mean you're paid by, or working for, a business/organization. Other definitions of the word "employed" include simply "occupied by," and "devoted or directed toward a particular activity."

Sure, but the most common use of the word "employed" (in this context) would be for pay, no?

I think to avoid running afoul of the Honest Mistake Rule (as it's been interpreted...) the most you can say is that the wording is ambiguous, and some nations could interpret it as excluding journalists who are not compensated. Also freelance journalists are paid; they're just not affiliated with a particular media outlet and sell their work to the highest bidder. So you'll probably want to remove that example.

Good point though, done.

by requiring that they be “employed in providing journalism”, may, depending on interpretation, exclude journalists that do not engage in journalism as a source of employment (e.g. unpaid or volunteer journalists), and

has the vague requirement that they “[operate] independent of any belligerent faction”, allowing member-states to claim that any journalists that are nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as a news organisation based in a belligerent nation but that is not operated by said belligerent nation’s government, do not "[operate] independent of any belligerent faction"

I simply don't think this is a fair criticism. You're talking about war and if journalists are even "nominally" dependent on the enemy I think there are legitimate military concerns with letting them have "access to a conflict zone and freedom of movement within it." Anyway, I think you can make a fair case for repeal without it, so I suggest removing it.

I strongly disagree with this. I think the goal of that clause - to prevent belligerents from doing "conflict journalism" with the intention of propaganda - is a valid concern, but just because a news organisation is based in a belligerent nation doesn't mean that they are necessarily a propaganda source. For example, Stuff.co.nz (an online news organisation in New Zealand, where I live in real life) is based in New Zealand, but is certainly not a propaganda source for the New Zealand government. In fact, Stuff.co.nz was owned by an Australian parent company for a long while until recently.

Frustrated by the similarly poor definition of an “act of espionage”, which, by requiring that a “belligerent faction” be benefitted by the act to be counted as an “act of espionage”, allows third parties that are not “belligerents” to benefit from acts that should be considered espionage;

Fair point, although I think you can make it more directly by striking some unnecessary language (suggested above). Your call.

Eh, sure, done.

Aware that Clause 2b allows for “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, which forces the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. deliberate misinformation or public defamation and harassment),

Meh. I'm a proponent of free speech so this argument isn't very persuasive to me. I don't find this argument persuasive but maybe others will.

I don't think the WA should enforce the legality of harassment or deliberate misinformation? I think that's best left to member-states rather than a blanket standard like that.

Displeased that Clause 2c, by prohibiting conflict journalists from carrying any weapons, implicitly prevents conflict journalists from using arms to defend themselves against hostile acts against them, only reducing the safety of conflict journalists, going against the intent of GAR#554, and also amplifying the aforementioned issue regarding Clause 3,

This clause was part of a reasonable compromise. Journalist carrying weapons in a warzone are a present threat to service members. It's not fair to ask WA members to give all these protections to conflict journalists if you're going to allow the journalists to carry arms and pose a mortal threat to soldiers in the area. I don't find this argument persuasive.

Hmm, while I'm not entirely persuaded by that argument as I still think that conflict journalists should be able to defend themselves, I'll remove that clause since it may be unpopular.

Unnerved by the vagueness of Clause 2d, from which “[conflict journalists] are prohibited from ... soliciting the services of armed escorts and mercenaries” prevents conflict journalists from receiving any sort of assistance from “armed escorts and mercenaries”, regardless of whether this assistance is entirely for the purposes of journalism (e.g. to solicit information regarding events for journalism),

Same comment as above. If journalists are allowed to basically form little armed platoons they become mortal threats and it's not reasonable to ask member nations to give them a bunch of special protections. I'm not persuaded that prohibiting journalists from forming armed bands with their mercenary buddies is a flaw.

That is... not the argument. The argument is that "soliciting the services of armed escorts and mercenaries" can include a conflict journalist asking an "armed escort" or "mercenary" about events going on for the purposes of journalism, since that is soliciting the service of recieving information for journalism.

EDIT: Actually, I do think that could be rewritten to make the point clearer. Done.

EDIT: Lol, thinking about it again, I'll remove it entirely.

Troubled by the fact that while the regulation within Clause 4 restricts the “kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target”, this lacks any specific protection against the harming of conflict journalists that does not necessarily result in the killing or kidnapping of said conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military, which can even be exploited through the detainment or non-deadly harming of conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military without falling afoul of GAR#554,

If you want to provide greater protection to journalists without contradicting GAR#554, you can do so without repealing. As currently written, this is not a good reason to repeal. It's a good reason to write a new resolution called "Greater Protection for Journalists" or something.

At least in my opinion, "It doesn't block future legislation to cover up for its loopholes" is not a strong argument against repealing. See also the precedent of things like Jedinsto's repeal of GAR#50 due to it having no binding material.

Also, you're a bit out on a limb here by suggesting that member nations could claim journalists were not a military target by delegating the task of targeting them to a non-member state or roaming gang or something. It's just hard for me to take that complaint seriously.

That's not the point -- the point is that a member-state is not required to grant the same level of protection to conflict journalists from entities like terrorist groups.

[Apatosaurus]

Bump.

[Apatosaurus]

Bumpity bump.

[Honeydewistania]

Aware that Clause 2b allows for “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, which forces the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. deliberate misinformation or public defamation and harassment),

A journalist would willingly go all the way to a warzone and risk their lives to spread false information? Doesn't sound likely

[Apatosaurus]

Aware that Clause 2b allows for “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, which forces the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. deliberate misinformation or public defamation and harassment),

A journalist would willingly go all the way to a warzone and risk their lives to spread false information? Doesn't sound likely

Good point, fixed.

[Minskiev]

Against as long as the Annoyed clause is included. That is absurd.

To clarify my arguments against here, the World Assembly only is responsible for member states and having member states carry out any mandates placed upon individuals, and this resolution is for keeping conflict journalists safe against malign member state actors. It is insane to say that the ability of a serial killer to murder conflict journalists under GA law (and mind you, this is disregarding rational national law) despite the provision claiming that conflict journalists were of a protected status, sinks GA#554 and necessitates a repeal.

[Apatosaurus]

Against as long as the Annoyed clause is included. That is absurd.

To clarify my arguments against here, the World Assembly only is responsible for member states and having member states carry out any mandates placed upon individuals, and this resolution is for keeping conflict journalists safe against malign member state actors. It is insane to say that the ability of a serial killer to murder conflict journalists under GA law (and mind you, this is disregarding rational national law) despite the provision claiming that conflict journalists were of a protected status, sinks GA#554 and necessitates a repeal.

Nobody's (or at least I'm not) talking about murdering conflict journalists, as that is obviously a violation of Clause 4 and that most reasonable nations have murder laws. This is about the fact that every action within Clause 3 that does not conflict with Clause 4 (for example detaining without kidnapping), can be done by non-member-state entities as far as GAR#554 is concerned.

As to Section 2a protection, what does that protection have to do besides the bare minimum? As far as GAR#554 is concerned, the protection on conflict journalists only needs to, if not already done, prohibit "the kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target" as per Clause 4, and prevent targeting of journalists by state entities as per Clause 3.

There is also much precent for restricting the actions of individuals or non-member-state entities within member states. For example, here, here, here and here are some recent examples, even though there are many more if I were to go looking.

"How dare you repeal and replace a resolution because its protections from non-state entities are weak" is not a strong argument.

[Minskiev]

To clarify my arguments against here, the World Assembly only is responsible for member states and having member states carry out any mandates placed upon individuals, and this resolution is for keeping conflict journalists safe against malign member state actors. It is insane to say that the ability of a serial killer to murder conflict journalists under GA law (and mind you, this is disregarding rational national law) despite the provision claiming that conflict journalists were of a protected status, sinks GA#554 and necessitates a repeal.

Nobody's (or at least I'm not) talking about murdering conflict journalists, as that is obviously a violation of Clause 4 and that most reasonable nations have murder laws. This is about the fact that every action within Clause 3 that does not conflict with Clause 4 (for example detaining without kidnapping), can be done by non-member-state entities as far as GAR#554 is concerned.

As to Section 2a protection, what does that protection have to do besides the bare minimum? As far as GAR#554 is concerned, the protection on conflict journalists only needs to, if not already done, prohibit "the kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target" as per Clause 4, and prevent targeting of journalists by state entities as per Clause 3.

There is also much precent for restricting the actions of individuals or non-member-state entities within member states. For example, here, here, here and here are some recent examples, even though there are many more if I were to go looking.

"How dare you repeal and replace a resolution because its protections from non-state entities are weak" is not a strong argument.

1) Detaining by terrorist groups or at least non-state entities is also a crime under rational national law.
2) You're conflating Subclause 2a with Clause 4. Clause 4 prohibits what can happen to conflict journalists, and has member states oblige. Subclause 2a has member states protect conflict journalists. If Subclause 2a had the same protections as Clause 3 and 4, Subclause 2a wouldn't exist. Subclause 2a is markedly different. And it is as it is written; protection. Conflict journalists must be protected. Nothing about "weak" protection. The state must protect them. Detainment by a terrorist group is a lapse in protection.
3) Member states are expected to carry out those restrictions in actions. If they do not, they are not complying.

[Apatosaurus]

Snippy snip

1) Detaining by terrorist groups or at least non-state entities is also a crime under rational national law.

It is not in the interest of self-interested nations to pose restrictions on detaining conflict journalists by terrorist groups or non-state entities besides that regulated by GAR#554's weak mandates. Period.

2) You're conflating Subclause 2a with Clause 4. Clause 4 prohibits what can happen to conflict journalists, and has member states oblige. Subclause 2a has member states protect conflict journalists. If Subclause 2a had the same protections as Clause 3 and 4, Subclause 2a wouldn't exist. Subclause 2a is markedly different. And it is as it is written; protection. Conflict journalists must be protected. Nothing about "weak" protection. The state must protect them. Detainment by a terrorist group is a lapse in protection.

What does 2a protection even have to do again? The state must give them the status of being "civilian non-combatants" and claim to protect them, but what does the protection have to do? As far as GAR#554 is concerned, that protection can do absolutely nothing besides being a formality and if not already done, enforcing Clause 3 and 4.

3) Member states are expected to carry out those restrictions in actions. If they do not, they are not complying.

... Yes. That's the point. Except GAR#554's, to put it that way, expectations on restrictions imposed on the harming of conflict journalists by non-member-state entities, are weak.

[Thousand Branches]

EDITS

Lauding the intent of GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism” to protect journalists operating in warzones, but

"Lauding" is too strong, it's like one level below lionizing and it makes little sense here. Something like "respecting" would be far more appropriate.

Disappointed by the presence of several significant and easily exploitable loopholes throughout GAR#554 that render it unsuitable for continued use by this august body,

"use" is such a weird way to phrase this? The WA doesn't "use" laws, it enacts and enforces them. Also "unsuitable" is equally weird, it reflects an air of inappropriateness or such that the WA is the wrong place for such legislation. Neither of these words are accurate, change them.

Highlighting the loopholes present within the blatantly flawed definition of a “conflict journalist”, which:

"within" may not be the correct word since these are loopholes present because of these definitions.

"blatantly flawed" is unnecessarily opinionated. If it were "blatant", it would not have passed. Change to "provided". That being said, you can emphasize the grievousness of the loopholes, you can do something like "Highlighting the dangerous concerns presented through the resolution's definition of a 'conflict journalist'".

by requiring that they be “employed in providing journalism”, may, depending on interpretation, exclude journalists that do not engage in journalism as a source of employment (e.g. unpaid or volunteer journalists), and

"that they" --> "that a conflict journalist"

The "may, depending on interpretation" is blah blah and it weakens your argument. Just do "excludes" and double down on your argument.

has the vague requirement that they “[operate] independent of any belligerent faction”, allowing member-states to claim that any journalists that are nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as a news organisation based in a belligerent nation but that is not operated by said belligerent nation’s government, do not "[operate] independent of any belligerent faction" and thus render them exempt from the provisions of GAR#554 in practice,

rewrite:

"includes the hazy requirement that a conflict journalist must “[operate] independent of any belligerent faction”, allowing member-states to claim that journalists nominally dependent on a belligerent faction, such as non-government news organisations headquartered in a belligerent nation, are exempt from the provisions of GAR#554,"

Frustrated by the poor definition of an “act of espionage”, which allows third parties that are not “belligerents” to benefit from acts that should be considered espionage,"

Again, "poor" feels like a personal attack on the resolution rather than a legitimate argument. Try "deficient".

Explain why maybe?

Aware that Clause 2b allows for “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, which forces the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. public defamation or harassment),

Rewrite:

"Averse to Clause 2b, which legalizes “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage” and unwittingly legalizes journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. public defamation or harassment),"

Annoyed by Clause 3’s lack of protection of conflict journalists from actors that are not necessarily member-states (e.g. armed civilians or terrorist groups), even allowing for the specific targeting of conflict journalists by non-member-state entities and needlessly endangering conflict journalists while not fulfilling the intent of Clause 3,

rewrite:

"Bothered by Clause 3’s lack of protection for conflict journalists from non-member state groups (e.g. armed civilians or terrorist groups), allowing for the specific targeting of conflict journalists by non-member-state entities and needlessly endangering conflict journalists,"

Troubled by the fact that while the regulation within Clause 4 restricts the “kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target”, this lacks any specific protection against the harming of conflict journalists that does not necessarily result in the killing or kidnapping of said conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military, which can even be exploited through the detainment or non-deadly harming of conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military without falling afoul of GAR#554,

Rewrite:

"Concerned that, while the regulations within Clause 4 restrict the “kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target”, they also lack any protections against the harming of conflict journalists that does not result in the killing or kidnapping of those journalists by actors other than a member-state or military, thereby allowing for the legal abuse of conflict journalists,"

Concluding that while the intent of GAR#554 is laudable, it contains several inconsistencies and loopholes that cause it to be too poorly written to remain in the books, and

Comma before "while".

Change "laudable".

"it contains several inconsistencies and loopholes that cause it to be too poorly written to remain in the books, and" runs into many previously mentioned problems. Change to "it in turn introduces too many inconsistencies and loopholes to safely achieve its goals,"

Hoping for the passage of a high-quality replacement of GAR#554 that avoids falling into these loopholes in the future,

Delete the whole clause. It doesn't need to be here.

Edits done, have a good day!

-A

[Apatosaurus]

EDITS

Lauding the intent of GAR#554 “Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism” to protect journalists operating in warzones, but

"Lauding" is too strong, it's like one level below lionizing and it makes little sense here. Something like "respecting" would be far more appropriate.

Done.

Disappointed by the presence of several significant and easily exploitable loopholes throughout GAR#554 that render it unsuitable for continued use by this august body,

"use" is such a weird way to phrase this? The WA doesn't "use" laws, it enacts and enforces them. Also "unsuitable" is equally weird, it reflects an air of inappropriateness or such that the WA is the wrong place for such legislation. Neither of these words are accurate, change them.

Changed "use" to "enforcement" and "unsuitable" to "inadequate". :)

Highlighting the loopholes present within the blatantly flawed definition of a “conflict journalist”, which:

"within" may not be the correct word since these are loopholes present because of these definitions.

"within" -> "due to"

"blatantly flawed" is unnecessarily opinionated. If it were "blatant", it would not have passed. Change to "provided". That being said, you can emphasize the grievousness of the loopholes, you can do something like "Highlighting the dangerous concerns presented through the resolution's definition of a 'conflict journalist'".

Consider:

Highlighting the loopholes present due to the substandard and flawed definition of a “conflict journalist”

by requiring that they be “employed in providing journalism”, may, depending on interpretation, exclude journalists that do not engage in journalism as a source of employment (e.g. unpaid or volunteer journalists), and

"that they" --> "that a conflict journalist"

The "may, depending on interpretation" is blah blah and it weakens your argument. Just do "excludes" and double down on your argument.

Consider:

by requiring that conflict journalists be “employed in providing journalism”, de facto excludes journalists that do not engage in journalism as a source of employment (e.g. unpaid or volunteer journalists),

Scissors go "snip"

All done.

Aware that Clause 2b allows for “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, which forces the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. public defamation or harassment),

Rewrite:

"Averse to Clause 2b, which legalizes “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage” and unwittingly legalizes journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. public defamation or harassment),"

Consider:

Aware that Clause 2b legalises “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, unwittingly forcing the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. public defamation or harassment),

Snippy snip

All done.

[Apatosaurus]

Consider this a threat to bring this into last call within the next few days if there is no more substantial feedback.

[Minskiev]

It is not in the interest of self-interested nations to pose restrictions on detaining conflict journalists by terrorist groups or non-state entities besides that regulated by GAR#554's weak mandates. Period.

...what restrictions on detaining...a terrorist group detaining someone unlawfully is a crime in nations with law enforcement, not having people inside their nations be essentially imprisoned unlawfully. Period.

What does 2a protection even have to do again? The state must give them the status of being "civilian non-combatants" and claim to protect them, but what does the protection have to do? As far as GAR#554 is concerned, that protection can do absolutely nothing besides being a formality and if not already done, enforcing Clause 3 and 4.

What is this "as far as GA#554 is concerned" bullshit? This is your interpretation of it, not its own. And your interpretation is, to me, wrong. The protection has to protect. If they are endangered and unlawfully detained by a terrorist group, they are not protected. It's not a formality, it's protection. If all it had to do was enforce Clause 3 and 4, it wouldn't be there, because Clause 3 and 4 are already enforced.

... Yes. That's the point. Except GAR#554's, to put it that way, expectations on restrictions imposed on the harming of conflict journalists by non-member-state entities, are weak.

I was referring to your restricting actions of individuals bit. And they aren't weak, it gives conflict journalists protected status and then to root out silly misinterpretations of what protection is, it illegalizes the most severe lapses in protection. Your concern is both illegal under rational national law and covered by protected status.

[Honeydewistania]

Consider this a threat to bring this into last call within the next few days if there is no more substantial feedback.

Consider this a threat to vote against your proposal if it is at vote in this state

[Apatosaurus]

-snip-

As per the discussion on Discord, I... still am not convinced by this argument? Protection from being killed and from being targetted by military groups IS protection. Pretending that "conflict journalists are classified as civilian non-combatants of a protected status" is somehow a universal catch-all is just silly, particularly when it is absolutely in a nation's interest to make it conflict journalism harder. That said, if others are also concerned about that clause I am happy to remove it.

Consider this a threat to bring this into last call within the next few days if there is no more substantial feedback.

Consider this a threat to vote against your proposal if it is at vote in this state

Fair, I suppose.

[Refuge Isle]

I would have thought that you would have been taking a break from ill-advised pursuits in the World Assembly, but this was clearly optimistic.

As with the last time someone attempted to repeal GAR#554, I do not think you have put as much research into the subject as I did and wishing that the text of my resolution were something else that would be worse in practicality. Your replacement's desire to arm journalists is one such example of this, as it would cause journalists to become confused with combatants, spies, or disrupt uneasy peace in the locations that are the most unstable. Your replacement only targeting traditional war and overlookng things like the recent riots in the US and Hong Kong where military equipment was used, and the government made efforts to silence or lock out the media, is another.

And so you seek to repeal legislation that is functional and beneficial solely for the purpose of executing it poorly in the future and leaving many more people out of the protection of the legislation.

Highlighting the loopholes present within the blatantly flawed definition of a “conflict journalist”, which:
by requiring that they be “employed in providing journalism”, excludes journalists that do not engage in journalism as a source of employment (e.g. unpaid, volunteer or freelance journalists),

I don't think this is a fair criticism as written. Being "employed" does not necessarily mean you're paid by, or working for, a business/organization. Other definitions of the word "employed" include simply "occupied by," and "devoted or directed toward a particular activity."

Sure, but the most common use of the word "employed" (in this context) would be for pay, no?

It does not need to be the "most common" use of a word. My wording of employment was intentional to encompass those who are in the pursuit of journalism, which does include volunteer and freelance journalists, without allowing a random militant to pick up a camcorder and declare protected status. It is a wording which allows the compliance commission to determine good faith adherence to the law.

Your complaint is false, and if submitted I will challenge on an honest mistake violation.

Frustrated by the inadequate definition of an “act of espionage”, which by requiring that a “belligerent faction” be benefitted by the act to be counted as an "act of espionage", allows third parties that are not “belligerents” to benefit from acts that should be considered espionage,

I think you may find that any reporting of battlefield activities, progression of a war, or reporting on an inner city riot can be declared to be an espionage or treason depending on how authoritarian the state in question is. The goal of journalism is to report on the events that are taking place, to inform the outside world of those events and to get people in the line of fire out of harm's way. Our role as the World Assembly is not to impede that process, but to protect the journalists from those draconian states which would like none of this to take place.

This isn't secretly passing papers in a smokey bar. Journalism is required, and journalism inevitably involves broadcasting events and situations that some states would like to keep under wraps. The definition in 554 walks a fine line between what is fair and what is necessary.

Aware that Clause 2b legalises “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, unwittingly forcing the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. public defamation or harassment),

Does a journalist travelling to a warzone carry a particular risk of defamation? It is ultimately not up to the World Assembly to be the arbiter of truth, especially in environments where what's happening isn't so easily known. I rather think this and the threat of harassment from inside a warzone is a...pretty comical complaint? I also do not restrict journalists from operating a forklift without a license. It is equally a non-issue in the circumstance in question.

Bothered by Clause 3’s lack of protection for conflict journalists from non-member state groups (e.g. armed civilians or terrorist groups), even allowing for the specific targeting of conflict journalists by non-member-state entities and needlessly endangering conflict journalists,

There's two interpretations of this statement, the first is that the target does not protect journalists who are from non-member states. This is false and likely grounds for another HM challenge. The definition of conflict journalist is not provided with a caveat of "conflict journalists who originate or have citizenship in a World Assembly nation". It is "a reporter or a reporter's technical assistant, operating independent of any belligerent faction, and employed in providing journalism from an ongoing conflict zone or its immediate surrounding area."

The other interpretation ought to remember that the World Assembly cannot legislate on non-WA governments, nor compel them to any activity or lack thereof. It is not only nonsensical, IC, but it is also illegal, OOC. If by "terrorist groups", you mean non-state entities operating outside the laws of their respective nations, then those groups are already illegal by definition, and probably not particularly moved by additional legislation from the World Assembly.

Troubled by the fact that while the regulations within Clause 4 restrict the “kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target”, they lack any specific protections against the harming of conflict journalists that does not necessarily result in the killing or kidnapping of said conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military, thereby allowing for the legal abuse of conflict journalists, and

You are not understanding this line at all. I did not restrict anything.

There is no point in legislating against things that are already illegal, such as murdering civilians, torturing them, etc. This has been done, and "double illegal" isn't something that particularly moves people. What this does is name these things as war crimes, that the already illegal thing must be dealt with at a higher level of severity. That's also an IRL question about how to protect journalists in the same regard. If it's already illegal to murder civilians, what do you do to protect them further? And it gets to this weird meta level where after a while, the best thing you can do is raise the credibility and respect of the international organisation that's legislating against it, and educate people that the laws exist.

[Apatosaurus]

As with the last time someone attempted to repeal GAR#554, I do not think you have put as much research into the subject as I did and wishing that the text of my resolution were something else that would be worse in practicality. Your replacement's desire to arm journalists is one such example of this, as it would cause journalists to become confused with combatants, spies, or disrupt uneasy peace in the locations that are the most unstable. Your replacement only targeting traditional war and overlookng things like the recent riots in the US and Hong Kong where military equipment was used, and the government made efforts to silence or lock out the media, is another.

If you have an issue with the replacement, put it in that thread, please, not here. Tinhampton is also the main author and wrote more of it than I did, so not sure why you are complaining solely to me as the co-author. As to the arming journalists thing, you will find that that part has since been both removed from this repeal and replaced with a blocker clause in the replacement because it was criticised in both places.

Sure, but the most common use of the word "employed" (in this context) would be for pay, no?

It does not need to be the "most common" use of a word. My wording of employment was intentional to encompass those who are in the pursuit of journalism, which does include volunteer and freelance journalists, without allowing a random militant to pick up a camcorder and declare protected status. It is a wording which allows the compliance commission to determine good faith adherence to the law.

Your complaint is false, and if submitted I will challenge on an honest mistake violation.

It is not exactly hard for a member-nation to state that if a journalist is not paid to provide journalism, then they are not employed in providing journalism, even if your interpretation of the word includes unpaid journalists. I updated the section to make it clear that this is due to varying interpretations & vagueness, but I still do not see how it is much of a stretch to say that volunteer journalists are not employed in providing journalism.

Frustrated by the inadequate definition of an “act of espionage”, which by requiring that a “belligerent faction” be benefitted by the act to be counted as an "act of espionage", allows third parties that are not “belligerents” to benefit from acts that should be considered espionage,

I think you may find that any reporting of battlefield activities, progression of a war, or reporting on an inner city riot can be declared to be an espionage or treason depending on how authoritarian the state in question is. The goal of journalism is to report on the events that are taking place, to inform the outside world of those events and to get people in the line of fire out of harm's way. Our role as the World Assembly is not to impede that process, but to protect the journalists from those draconian states which would like none of this to take place.

This isn't secretly passing papers in a smokey bar. Journalism is required, and journalism inevitably involves broadcasting events and situations that some states would like to keep under wraps. The definition in 554 walks a fine line between what is fair and what is necessary.

... Okay. The point is not whether it is good enough on belligerent factions, which I will even say that the definition is fine as to belligerent factions engaging in espionage. The point is that at the moment, a non-belligerent faction can easily commit acts that should be considered espionage and benefit from them. There is absolutely nothing to do with "draconian states".

Aware that Clause 2b legalises “any journalism” that is not considered an “act of espionage”, unwittingly forcing the legality of journalism that may otherwise be illegal (e.g. public defamation or harassment),

Does a journalist travelling to a warzone carry a particular risk of defamation? It is ultimately not up to the World Assembly to be the arbiter of truth, especially in environments where what's happening isn't so easily known. I rather think this and the threat of harassment from inside a warzone is a...pretty comical complaint? I also do not restrict journalists from operating a forklift without a license. It is equally a non-issue in the circumstance in question.

How is it a "comical complaint"? If a conflict journalist decides to engage in harassment via journalism, they are given a free and easy medium to do so without any prohibition from member-states as member-states are required to legalise it. I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the WA should not force the legality of harassment or defamation (among other things, harassment and defamation are not a complete list of what GAR#554 forces the legality of in that part) just because the medium of doing such involves conflict journalism.

Bothered by Clause 3’s lack of protection for conflict journalists from non-member state groups (e.g. armed civilians or terrorist groups), even allowing for the specific targeting of conflict journalists by non-member-state entities and needlessly endangering conflict journalists,

There's two interpretations of this statement, the first is that the target does not protect journalists who are from non-member states. This is false and likely grounds for another HM challenge. The definition of conflict journalist is not provided with a caveat of "conflict journalists who originate or have citizenship in a World Assembly nation". It is "a reporter or a reporter's technical assistant, operating independent of any belligerent faction, and employed in providing journalism from an ongoing conflict zone or its immediate surrounding area."

The other interpretation ought to remember that the World Assembly cannot legislate on non-WA governments, nor compel them to any activity or lack thereof. It is not only nonsensical, IC, but it is also illegal, OOC. If by "terrorist groups", you mean non-state entities operating outside the laws of their respective nations, then those groups are already illegal by definition, and probably not particularly moved by additional legislation from the World Assembly.

What I was trying to say is that individuals or groups that are not member states can do any of the actions prohibited in Clause 3 as long as they do not violate Clause 4. Why is it in the interest of a self-interested member-nation to prohibit other entities from targeting conflict journalists, if GAR#554 leaves so much space for such? As to the "terrorist groups" thing, that was a good point raised on Discord and as such you will find that that specific example was removed (though likely after you wrote that), but the other example (armed civilians) still stands.

Troubled by the fact that while the regulations within Clause 4 restrict the “kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target”, they lack any specific protections against the harming of conflict journalists that does not necessarily result in the killing or kidnapping of said conflict journalists by actors other than a member-state or military, thereby allowing for the legal abuse of conflict journalists, and

You are not understanding this line at all. I did not restrict anything.

There is no point in legislating against things that are already illegal, such as murdering civilians, torturing them, etc. This has been done, and "double illegal" isn't something that particularly moves people. What this does is name these things as war crimes, that the already illegal thing must be dealt with at a higher level of severity. That's also an IRL question about how to protect journalists in the same regard. If it's already illegal to murder civilians, what do you do to protect them further? And it gets to this weird meta level where after a while, the best thing you can do is raise the credibility and respect of the international organisation that's legislating against it, and educate people that the laws exist.

You are making the assumption that a self-interested member-nation would try to prohibit the targeting of conflict journalists despite GAR#554 leaving so much space for such as long as there is no "kidnapping, murder, or deliberate use of a conflict journalist as a military target". But ... how is it in the interest of a self-interested member-nation to do so? If a non-member-state organisation decides to harm or target conflict journalists without violating Clause 4 or Clause 5, member-states are not required to prohibit that as per GAR#554, and I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that a self-interested member-nation would allow it if it is in their self-interest.

[Thousand Branches]

-snip-

I would like to note here that employment, according to Oxford Languages (my general source on wide ranging definitions), can definitively be either/or:

Definition 1: the condition of having paid work.
Definition 2: a person’s trade or profession.
Definition 3: the action of giving work to someone.

I will note that none of these connote specifically monetary wages, in case that was in contention. I will say that the wording better supports Luca’s argument that in good faith adherence to the law, one could not definitively support the argument that employment specifically has to pertain to money/barter. And since GA resolutions stand alone in terms of definitions, you could not use a previously introduced definition of “employment” to argue that point.