[MOOT - SEE GA#630] Fairness for War Correspondents

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 2,998
Word count: 465

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Given Ambrose Scott's recent draft to repeal... whatever this Safety and Integrity thing is, we thought it timely to draft a replacement - along with him, of course.

Fairness for War Correspondents
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity

Area of Effect: Free Press

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Recognising that war correspondents often serve at the intersection of public interest and, albeit through no fault of their own, personal endangerment, yet

Noting that GA#170, GA#501 and GA#554, this body's previous three attempts to secure their fundamental rights in the line of fire and beyond, have been repealed for various reasons, and

Seeking to protect their rights yet again...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "warzone" as a location experiencing organised armed conflict between any two or more entities, and
   2. a "war correspondent" as any person who engages in journalism about or from a warzone,
2. requires that each member state which has a warzone within their jurisdiction allow war correspondents to report from any location in (or directly near to) that warzone, so long as such reporting neither:
   
   1. constitutes the secret collection of classified information in order to aid any private group, whether or not it is participating in the conflict that warzone is experiencing at that moment, unless such collection is necessary to enforce, or investigate violations of, binding law (including peace agreements and active World Assembly resolutions), nor
   2. occurs on privately owned land without the permission of its owner,
3. forbids any form of retaliation against war correspondents by member states, individuals or groups of individuals, including but not limited to their detention, killing, seriously harming, using as living shields, or being denied equal protection under law,
4. allows all war correspondents in a member state to seek and receive any assistance sought solely to facilitate their reporting from any person willing to provide it to them,
5. reserves to member states whether, and for what purposes, to allow war correspondents within their jurisdiction to carry civilian weapons, so long as they do not use those weapons to benefit a party to the armed conflict in the warzone they are reporting about or from through the use of violence or deadly force,
6. prohibits member states from restricting the publication of journalism reported by war correspondents, except where such journalism either:
   
   1. violates Article b, or
   2. contains knowingly false or misleading information that is presented as if it were fact in the course of factual reporting by war correspondents (subject to prior and unrepealed international law), and
7. clarifies that this resolution neither:
   
   1. covers those who would be considered war correspondents, but who either breach Article b; commit any war crime; otherwise assist (or seek to assist) any combatant in a warzone through the wilful use of force, violence, or destruction of others' property; or aid or abett the aforementioned acts, nor
   2. necessarily requires member states to suppress journalism that violates Article f(ii) (although they are still encouraged to do so where viable).

Co-author: Apatosaurus

[Tinhampton]

Old drafts - all co-authored by Apatosaurus.

Recognising that war correspondents often serve at the intersection of public interest and, albeit through no fault of their own, personal endangerment, yet

Noting that GA#170, GA#501 and GA#554, this body's previous three attempts to secure their fundamental rights in the line of fire and beyond, have been repealed for various reasons, and

Seeking to protect their rights yet again...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "warzone" as a location experiencing organised armed conflict, and
   2. a "war correspondent" as any person who reports about or from a warzone,
2. requires that each member state which has a warzone within their jurisdiction allow war correspondents to report from any location in that warzone, so long as such reporting neither:
   
   1. constitutes the secret collection of classified information in order to aid any private group, whether or not it is participating in that conflict that warzone is experiencing,
   2. would be illegal in that member were a non-war correspondent to conduct it, nor
   3. occurs on privately owned land without the permission of its owner,
3. forbids any form of retaliation against war correspondents due to their reporting about or from a warzone pursuant to Article b, including but not limited to their detention, killing, seriously harming, or using as living shields,
4. allows all war correspondents in a member state to seek and receive any assistance from any person willing to provide it to them, where it is sought solely to facilitate their reporting,
5. reserves to member states whether, and for what purposes, to allow war correspondents within their jurisdiction to carry civilian weapons, so long as they do not use those weapons to benefit a party to the armed conflict in the warzone they are reporting about or from through the use of violence or deadly force, and
6. clarifies that this resolution does not cover those who would be considered war correspondents, but who either breach Article b; commit any war crime; or otherwise assist (or seek to assist) any combatant in a warzone through the wilful use of force, violence, or destruction of others' property.

Recognising that war correspondents often serve at the intersection of public interest and (through no fault of their own) personal endangerment, yet

Noting that GA#170, GA#501 and GA#554, this body's previous three attempts to secure their fundamental rights in the line of fire and beyond, have been repealed for various reasons, and

Seeking to protect their rights yet again...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "warzone" as a location experiencing organised armed conflict, and
   2. a "war correspondent" as any person who reports about or from a warzone,
2. requires that each member state which has a warzone within their jurisdiction allow war correspondents to report from any location in that warzone, so long as such reporting neither:
   
   1. is published, or relies on information secretly collected, for the benefit of any entity other than the public at large,
   2. would be illegal in that member were a non-war correspondent to conduct it, nor
   3. occurs on privately owned land without the permission of its owner,
3. forbids any form of retaliation against war correspondents due to their reporting about or from a warzone pursuant to Article b (including but not limited to their detention, killing, seriously harming, or using as living shields),
4. allows all war correspondents in a member state to seek any permissible assistance from any person willing to provide it to them, where it is sought solely to facilitate their reporting,
5. permits all war correspondents in a member state to carry or use all weapons which that member allows its civilians to carry or use, under the same restrictions on their carriage and use that its civilians face:
   
   1. for self-defence or religious reasons, and otherwise
   2. for exactly the same reasons which that member state allows its civilians to carry or use them, and
6. clarifies that this resolution does not cover those who would be considered war correspondents, but who either breach Article b; commit any war crime; or otherwise assist (or seek to assist) any combatant in a warzone through the wilful use of force, violence, or destruction of others' property.

[Apatosaurus]

Repeal of GAR#554

Was nice to help in this ^-^

[Xanthorrhoea]

b. requires that each member state which has a warzone within their jurisdiction allow war correspondents to report from any location in that warzone, so long as such reporting neither:

1. is published, or relies on information secretly collected, for the benefit of any entity other than the public at large,

Any reporting by a war correspondant will passively benefit entities other than the public at large. At the minimum it will give information about what your opponent's public knows, which is useful. Consequently, I would argue that any and all war reporting is published for the benefit of entities other than the public (in addition to the public), and hence would fall foul of this provision.

I'm not sure how best to fix this, or even if my interpretation is tenable. Someone more lawyery than me should probably weigh in.

[Honeydewistania]

Opposed due to clause e.

[WayNeacTia]

Opposed due to clause e.

Concur. Correspondents enjoy no sworn legal protection anywhere else, so why should they be permitted to carry weapons in a combat situation? They are there to report on the war, not to fight it. If a situation is hot enough that reporters need to be armed, they shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Tinhampton]

Some changes have been made after consultation with my co-author.

You may note that Article b(i) refers to "any private group, whether or not it is participating in that conflict that warzone is experiencing." Apatosaurus believes that the underlined clarification wouldn't hurt but I don't mind either way.

[Tinhampton]

After even further consultation, this draft was held up for two weeks due to my concerns about the implications of the WA effectively granting a permission slip for member states to preclear everything that war correspondents push out in the name of fact-checking (well, that and what Honeydewistania said on the repeal thread). I have - very reluctantly - chosen to include such provisions in Article f, however.

[Apatosaurus]

After even further consultation, this draft was held up for two weeks due to my concerns about the implications of the WA effectively granting a permission slip for member states to preclear everything that war correspondents push out in the name of fact-checking (well, that and what Honeydewistania said on the repeal thread). I have - very reluctantly - chosen to include such provisions in Article f, however.

If you're worried about blocking, use a "within the bounds of past and future World Assembly legislation that has not been repealed" or something similar.

EDIT:

permits member states to restrict the publication of knowingly false or misleading information that is presented as if it were fact in the course of factual reporting by war correspondents, subject to international law (past or future) that has not been repealed, and

[Tinhampton]

After even further consultation, this draft was held up for two weeks due to my concerns about the implications of the WA effectively granting a permission slip for member states to preclear everything that war correspondents push out in the name of fact-checking (well, that and what Honeydewistania said on the repeal thread). I have - very reluctantly - chosen to include such provisions in Article f, however.

If you're worried about blocking, use a "within the bounds of past and future World Assembly legislation that has not been repealed" or something similar.

Done (and Article a(ii) also changed from "reports" to "engages in journalism" on Apatosaurus' request). Comment is invited on all of these changes and more.

[Tinhampton]

Bump. Always looking for comments!

[Tinhampton]

Smith: Following some negotiations with Ambassador Scott, Articles b(i), c and f have been added to - and a reassurance has been added in the form of a new Article g(ii).

[OOC: Article b(i) now reads "is necessary to enforce" rather than "occurs to enforce" and explicitly covers "active WA resolutions" too. Article c now requires war correspondents to be offered equal protection under law. Article f now allows the restriction of journalism that violates Article b. Article g(ii) clarifies that member states are under no obligation to suppress journalism that violates Article f(ii).]

[Tinhampton]

Multipurpose bump.

1. This should be submitted in a couple of weeks.
2. Article g(i) now covers the aiding and abetting of certain acts.
3. Apatosaurus has suggested that I remove the blocker in Article e, since Article g(i) already does not cover those who "assist (or seek to assist) any combatant in a warzone through the wilful use of force, violence, or destruction of others' property." Would this be a good idea?

[Maowi]

OOC: In b.i., why is a "private group" specified? It seems odd to me that an enemy member state could send in a government-sponsored "war correspondent" to investigate certain classified matters, and must be permitted to do so by the member state on the receiving end of this ... similarly, why specify that the collection of classified information must be "secret"? If the war correspondent starts shouting about their intention to report on classified information, must member states permit them to go ahead?

It may be implied, but in c. it might help if it is specified that the retaliation banned in this proposal is specifically that in response to the individual's actions as a war correspondent (otherwise, their occupation may seem to give them immunity from any kind of unrelated retaliation).

3. Apatosaurus has suggested that I remove the blocker in Article e, since Article g(i) already does not cover those who "assist (or seek to assist) any combatant in a warzone through the wilful use of force, violence, or destruction of others' property." Would this be a good idea?

I don't think the blocker is necessary, as it would be quite a niche and specific thing for a later resolution to encroach on - but I similarly don't think it's particularly doing any harm at the moment.

Overall this looks great to me :)

[Apatosaurus]

OOC: In b.i., why is a "private group" specified? It seems odd to me that an enemy member state could send in a government-sponsored "war correspondent" to investigate certain classified matters, and must be permitted to do so by the member state on the receiving end of this ...

"Does "entity" work?"

similarly, why specify that the collection of classified information must be "secret"? If the war correspondent starts shouting about their intention to report on classified information, must member states permit them to go ahead?

"The purpose of the "secret" mandate is that all conflict journalism will benefit entities other than the public to varying degrees, but the difference is whether the information is distributed publically or privately. Would a mandate such as "involves the collection of classified information for the purposes of distributing said information to any entity in order to benefit that entity, unless such collection or distribution is necessary to ..." work?"

It may be implied, but in c. it might help if it is specified that the retaliation banned in this proposal is specifically that in response to the individual's actions as a war correspondent (otherwise, their occupation may seem to give them immunity from any kind of unrelated retaliation).

"Would it help if "retaliation" is changed to "discrimination"?"

[Maowi]

OOC:

OOC: In b.i., why is a "private group" specified? It seems odd to me that an enemy member state could send in a government-sponsored "war correspondent" to investigate certain classified matters, and must be permitted to do so by the member state on the receiving end of this ...

"Does "entity" work?"

Yes, or you could simply remove "in order to aid any private group" etc.

similarly, why specify that the collection of classified information must be "secret"? If the war correspondent starts shouting about their intention to report on classified information, must member states permit them to go ahead?

"The purpose of the "secret" mandate is that all conflict journalism will benefit entities other than the public to varying degrees, but the difference is whether the information is distributed publically or privately. Would a mandate such as "involves the collection of classified information for the purposes of distributing said information to any entity in order to benefit that entity, unless such collection or distribution is necessary to ..." work?"

I'd think that if the information is distributed privately, it can hardly be counted as journalism - at that point it is espionage. I'm a bit confused by the point you're making though, can I just clarify if I'm interpreting you correctly? From what I understand you want to allow journalists to report on classified information, even if it is not necessary to investigate violations of binding law, as long as they are sharing their reporting publicly and not secretly to a private group that may or may not be involved in the conflict in question.

It may be implied, but in c. it might help if it is specified that the retaliation banned in this proposal is specifically that in response to the individual's actions as a war correspondent (otherwise, their occupation may seem to give them immunity from any kind of unrelated retaliation).

"Would it help if "retaliation" is changed to "discrimination"?"

I don't think that would particularly address the point I'm raising. Maybe something along the lines of "forbids any form of retaliation against war correspondents in response to legal actions taken by them in their capacity as war correspondents"? I know that is very wordy but hopefully that clarifies the point I'm trying to make.

[Apatosaurus]

I'd think that if the information is distributed privately, it can hardly be counted as journalism - at that point it is espionage. I'm a bit confused by the point you're making though, can I just clarify if I'm interpreting you correctly? From what I understand you want to allow journalists to report on classified information, even if it is not necessary to investigate violations of binding law, as long as they are sharing their reporting publicly and not secretly to a private group that may or may not be involved in the conflict in question.

"Yes, because espionage done publically will have little benefit for whoever is doing it."

It may be implied, but in c. it might help if it is specified that the retaliation banned in this proposal is specifically that in response to the individual's actions as a war correspondent (otherwise, their occupation may seem to give them immunity from any kind of unrelated retaliation).

"Would it help if "retaliation" is changed to "discrimination"?"

I don't think that would particularly address the point I'm raising. Maybe something along the lines of "forbids any form of retaliation against war correspondents in response to legal actions taken by them in their capacity as war correspondents"? I know that is very wordy but hopefully that clarifies the point I'm trying to make.[/quote]
"That's fair enough."

[Maowi]

I'd think that if the information is distributed privately, it can hardly be counted as journalism - at that point it is espionage. I'm a bit confused by the point you're making though, can I just clarify if I'm interpreting you correctly? From what I understand you want to allow journalists to report on classified information, even if it is not necessary to investigate violations of binding law, as long as they are sharing their reporting publicly and not secretly to a private group that may or may not be involved in the conflict in question.

"Yes, because espionage done publically will have little benefit for whoever is doing it."

OOC: I see what you mean. In that case, might something like this achieve that aim?

"involves the collection of classified information for the purposes of distributing it to a restricted group of individuals and not to the general public, unless such collection is necessary to ..."

[Apatosaurus]

"Yes, because espionage done publically will have little benefit for whoever is doing it."

OOC: I see what you mean. In that case, might something like this achieve that aim?

"involves the collection of classified information for the purposes of distributing it to a restricted group of individuals and not to the general public, unless such collection is necessary to ..."

"Consider this:"

"involves the collection of classified information for the purposes of distributing it to a restricted group of individuals for that group's benefit, unless such collection is necessary to ..."

[Maowi]

"Consider this:"

"involves the collection of classified information for the purposes of distributing it to a restricted group of individuals for that group's benefit, unless such collection is necessary to ..."

OOC: That seems like it would do the job.

[Cretox State]

W: "Let's see what we can make of this, ambassador. On first reading, this draft appears to run into many of the issues we've seen in prior wartime journalism proposals. It's difficult for me to say whether those issues are writing flaws or just unfortunate quirks of the subject matter.

defines, for the purposes of this resolution... a "warzone" as a location experiencing organised armed conflict between any two or more entities

What does "organised armed conflict" mean here? Let's say a hostile power attempts an airstrike on a State military base. Is that base now a "warzone" that journalists must be allowed access to? Is the entire surrounding area- no doubt covered in flaming aircraft parts and mangled wreckage- a "warzone" as well?

requires that each member state which has a warzone within their jurisdiction allow war correspondents to report from any location in (or directly near to) that warzone, so long as such reporting [doesn't constitute] the secret collection of classified information in order to aid any private group, whether or not it is participating in the conflict that warzone is experiencing at that moment, unless such collection is necessary to enforce, or investigate violations of, binding law (including peace agreements and active World Assembly resolutions)

Couldn't a journalist sidestep this entire clause by not bothering to collect the information secretly? And what if the journalist isn't collecting the information to aid any private group, but simply for themselves? It's still a massive security hole. Granting an exception simply for investigations is likewise problematic- it's very easy for a nation to open an investigation into some alleged violation and cite the collection of classified information as necessary... which gets us back to the first problem, that such collection is unlikely to be secret, and therefore isn't covered by this clause.

requires that each member state which has a warzone within their jurisdiction allow war correspondents to report from any location in (or directly near to) that warzone, so long as such reporting [doesn't occur] on privately owned land without the permission of its owner

Private property can easily become a warzone, and much of a nation's land can be privately owned depending on the nation. Journalists shouldn't be exempt from being allowed to operate in a conflict zone just because that zone happens to be on privately owned farmland and the owners can't be reached due to having fled the area (as any sane person would).

forbids any form of retaliation against war correspondents by member states, individuals or groups of individuals, including but not limited to their detention, killing, seriously harming, using as living shields, or being denied equal protection under law,

Isn't "living shields" already prohibited by another resolution? The death penalty is also prohibited. The way this clause is written, "detention" in general appears to be listed as a form of prohibited retaliation rather than retaliating by detaining a correspondent being the thing that's prohibited. Detaining journalists pending an investigation into abuse of their privileges is a perfectly legitimate way of preventing them from releasing information that's potentially damaging to national security until the nature of that information can be ascertained and the journalist released (or not).

allows all war correspondents in a member state to seek and receive any assistance sought solely to facilitate their reporting from any person willing to provide it to them

A journalist requests protection while operating in a potentially dangerous area and their government sends a platoon. The journalist sought the assistance solely to facilitate their safe reporting.

reserves to member states whether, and for what purposes, to allow war correspondents within their jurisdiction to carry civilian weapons, so long as they do not use those weapons to benefit a party to the armed conflict in the warzone they are reporting about or from through the use of violence or deadly force

If a journalist uses their weapon to gun down a hostile soldier in self-defense, they are by definition benefiting their country's war effort.

prohibits member states from restricting the publication of journalism reported by war correspondents, except where such journalism either... violates Article b, or contains knowingly false or misleading information that is presented as if it were fact in the course of factual reporting by war correspondents (subject to prior and unrepealed international law)

Here's where we get to the major problem all of these wartime journalism proposals seem to share. Once information's released into the wild, there's no taking it back. It's next to impossible to determine with any degree of certainty whether a given piece of information is false, misleading, or otherwise should not be released in the moment. Even the knowledge that a piece of information merely exists can be detrimental to national security (even though the proposal doesn't cover national security, which it really should). You can't preemptively determine whether a piece of reporting is intentionally false, misleading, or otherwise compromising. Nations would need to thoroughly investigate wartime reporting to make sure; this clause requires it. Such investigations could very well last a long time, perhaps even indefinitely, either due to good-faith reasons or because the investigating party's intentionally prolonging them. The other option is to force nations to allow all potentially questionable reporting to be released, which is a non-starter for what we hope are obvious reasons.

It could very well just be an issue with the subject matter- release of information is a tricky thing to handle because of how quickly information spreads and how nigh-impossible it is to contain it. I recommend focusing on ensuring the safety and fair treatment of wartime correspondents and not on what information they may collect or release- I fear that topic might simply be unsuited for a WA resolution."

[Apatosaurus]

"I agree with most of the critiques by... Whatshisface... Well... I do not agree with all of his critiques:"

requires that each member state which has a warzone within their jurisdiction allow war correspondents to report from any location in (or directly near to) that warzone, so long as such reporting [doesn't constitute] the secret collection of classified information in order to aid any private group, whether or not it is participating in the conflict that warzone is experiencing at that moment, unless such collection is necessary to enforce, or investigate violations of, binding law (including peace agreements and active World Assembly resolutions)

Couldn't a journalist sidestep this entire clause by not bothering to collect the information secretly? :p

"Espionage done publically has little benefit for whoever is committing it. If it requires member states to publish intelligence they have collected, that is better than member states claiming that all war journalism is espionage because it passively benefits entities outside of just the public."

Granting an exception simply for investigations is likewise problematic- it's very easy for a nation to open an investigation into some alleged violation and cite the collection of classified information as necessary... which gets us back to the first problem, that such collection is unlikely to be secret, and therefore isn't covered by this clause.

"Would "except to the least extent necessary to enforce, or investigate ..." work?"

requires that each member state which has a warzone within their jurisdiction allow war correspondents to report from any location in (or directly near to) that warzone, so long as such reporting [doesn't occur] on privately owned land without the permission of its owner

Private property can easily become a warzone, and much of a nation's land can be privately owned depending on the nation. Journalists shouldn't be exempt from being allowed to operate in a conflict zone just because that zone happens to be on privately owned farmland and the owners can't be reached due to having fled the area (as any sane person would).

"Would "occurs on privately owned land against the will of its owner" work?"

forbids any form of retaliation against war correspondents by member states, individuals or groups of individuals, including but not limited to their detention, killing, seriously harming, using as living shields, or being denied equal protection under law,

Isn't "living shields" already prohibited by another resolution? The death penalty is also prohibited.

"If done by a member state or military, sure, but what if, say, an individual or terrorist group does it?"

allows all war correspondents in a member state to seek and receive any assistance sought solely to facilitate their reporting from any person willing to provide it to them

A journalist requests protection while operating in a potentially dangerous area and their government sends a platoon. The journalist sought the assistance solely to facilitate their safe reporting.

"Clause g.i."

reserves to member states whether, and for what purposes, to allow war correspondents within their jurisdiction to carry civilian weapons, so long as they do not use those weapons to benefit a party to the armed conflict in the warzone they are reporting about or from through the use of violence or deadly force

If a journalist uses their weapon to gun down a hostile soldier in self-defense, they are by definition benefiting their country's war effort.

"Would it help if this blocker is axed, and g.i has ", except to the minimal extent necessary for self-defense," added to it before "; or aid or abett" ?"