[Draft #2] Repeal: Protections In Wartime Reporting

[Simone Republic]

The undersigned are aghast that the author of the current resolution conceded that this resolution pending (assuming it passes, becoming GAR#624) is inferior to the replaced resolution (GAR#554) which failed to address the abysmal loopholes listed above yet proceeded to move forward (twice) on this resolution without due regards to the considered arguments of other ambassadors to this esteemed assembly;

Note that citizens will still be protected under GAR#334 as a minimum and hope that this gives a chance for the esteemed assembly to re-draft future resolutions on protecting wartime journalism, in light of the two previous resolutions on this matter (GAR#501 and GAR#554) and their repeals (GAR#504 and GAR#591).

Furthermore, urges the Assembly to carefully consider issues such as a balance between "operational security" (OPSEC) compared to freedom of press, for which the Assembly appears to have reached no consensus and strongly the Assembly to consider a replacement that reflects the changing realities of warfare, particularly the increased use of "open source intelligence" and the blurring of lines between ordinary citizens using social media (and sharing information that may end up having military use) vs proper reporters.

The OSINT comments are (quite obviously) in response to the current situation in Europe with the use of Telegram, Twitter, Starlink, open source drones and other technologies not seen in combat prior to February 2022.



Draft 2

The World Assembly,

Aghast at the passing of the resolution GAR#624 "Protections In Wartime Reporting", which includes several literally fatal loopholes endangering the lives of journalists, "civic journalism" and social media users already facing grave dangers at war, including:

1. Section (3)(b) of the said resolution, which introduced the loophole of stopping all journalists to enter the war-torn areas, creating a loophole over protections afforded under GAR#601 ("Freedom of Travel") and hampering freedom of the press;
   
2. Significant ambiguities resulting from (i) defining "wartime reporting", but not who is a "wartime reporter", (ii) an unclear definition of "espionage" and "clandestine" activities, resulting in numerous issues (specifically, depending on [i]which side[/] they fall among belligerents in a war), including:
   
   
   1. Potentially allowing significant users of social media to lose protection otherwise available under GAR#334 ("Protected Status in Wartime") and become belligerents in a war (inadvertently or otherwise) merely due to their use of social media to reveal information that may be considered "clandestine" ;
      
   2. The absence of any accountability towards "open-source intelligence" ("OSINT"), which has become far more important in warfare in very recent times as a result of developments in technologies across the NS multi-verse, such as the use of low-cost satellites, positioning systems, smart phones, the use of common social media and communication platforms even by troops on the ground, putting ordinary social media users at risk even if they inadvertently took pictures or shared information that turned out to have intelligence value;
      
   3. Ambiguities in section (4) resulting in the possible interpretation of social media users (and others engaged in citizen journalism, even merely as good neighbours informing each other of incoming missiles or the progress of war in general) as OSINT participants (and in turn as combatants), and causing them to lose their protection under GAR#334 ("Protected Status in Wartime") and GAR#345 ("Proscription on Living Shields")
3. The absence of any protection for paramilitary activities (previously under GAR#554) which may be considered by separate pending resolutions on law enforcement officers;
   
4. The replacement of a stronger resolution (GAR#554, "Safety and Integrity In Conflict Journalism") by a weaker resolution, and the abject failure to close loopholes cited in GAR#591 ("Repeal "Safety and Integrity In Conflict Journalism")

Hereby repeals GAR#[624] "Protections in Wartime Reporting" and looks forward to rigorous debate in the esteemed Assembly on any possible replacements.

Co-authors: [pending, will be edited in due course]

Draft 1

The World Assembly,

Aghast at the passing of the resolution GAR#624 "Protections In Wartime Reporting" which includes several literally fatal loopholes endangering the lives of journalists and other civilians facing grave dangers at war, including:

1. The absence of any protection for police brutality (under GAR#554) which protected reporters covering civil unrest and disturbances despite the use of military-grade equipment on civilians, rendering this resolution toothless in comparison;

2. A definition of "wartime reporting", but not who is a wartime reporter, resulting in (combined with section 4(c) of the said resolution) potentially allows citizen journalists, influencers and significant social media users to lose protection that they would otherwise enjoy under GAR#334 and become belligerents in a war merely due to their use of social media to reveal information that may be considered "clandestine" or "espionage" depending on which side (if any) they fall among belligerents in a war;

3. Ambiguous definitions on "espionage" activities, resulting in uncertainty over the overt reporting from one side of a war and the lack of physical or legal recourse for the activity under those conditions, as well as for reporters to effectively become belligerents of their own accord so long as they are not secretive, do not transport supplies, do not direct the use of force (presumably themselves), and do at least some legitimate journalism;

4. The absence of any accountability towards "open-source intelligence", which has become far more important in warfare in recent times as a result of developments in technologies across the NS multi-verse, such as the use of low-cost satellites, very low-cost positioning systems and mobile phones with camera and video functions, inexpensive drones, "top kill" tank bombs, and other technologies not prevalent since the esteemed Assembly last considered this issue;

Hereby repeals GAR#[624] "Protections in Wartime Reporting".

Co-authors: [pending, will be edited in due course]

Personal note: I retract with apologies to my previous statements about insta-repeals being undemocratic and other related comments. I am writing in a personal capacity and this proposal does not represent the views of WALL or TNP in any way.

[Nouvel Empire]

Given the flaws of the target resolution, and appreciating the quality of this insta-repeal, full support.

[Philimbesi]

We give full support with the caveat of no replacement.


Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA

[Heavens Reach]

May be considered if and only if an insta-replacement that addresses all of these issues accompanies it. It's high time for some form of protection, perfect or not, to be restored.

[Starman of Stardust]

The undersigned are aghast that the author of the current resolution conceded that this resolution pending (assuming it passes, becoming GAR#624) is inferior to the replaced resolution (GAR#554) which failed to address the abysmal loopholes listed above yet proceeded to move forward (twice) on this resolution without due regards to the considered arguments of other ambassadors to this esteemed assembly;

Ooc: I'll be blunt, since I'm in that mood right now. I never "conceded that this resolution pending is inferior to the replaced resolution". I acknowledged that the scope of 554 was indeed broader than this, not that 554 is better than the at vote in general. Stop misrepresenting my posts.

Ic _

"Opposed, we find these arguments to be wholly unconvincing, and accordingly will campaign heavily against this proposal should it be submitted."

Note that citizens will still be protected under GAR#334 as a minimum and hope that this gives a chance for the esteemed assembly to re-draft future resolutions on protecting wartime journalism, in light of the two previous resolutions on this matter (GAR#501 and GAR#554) and their repeals (GAR#504 and GAR#591).

"Has your mission even read 334? I believe I had told you this before, but all that 334 does is bar member nation militaries from falsely invoking protected status, such as claiming to be a civilian while fighting for a combatant military."

The absence of any protection for police brutality (under GAR#554) which protected reporters covering civil unrest and disturbances despite the use of military-grade equipment on civilians, rendering this resolution toothless in comparison;

"While it would have been preferrible for this to also address police brutality, why is this an issue necessitating repeal? It does not affect the strength of the resolution's mandates vis-a-vis military conflicts. Alone, this is not sufficient to justify repeal."

2. A definition of "wartime reporting", but not who is a wartime reporter, resulting in (combined with section 4(c) of the said resolution) potentially allows citizen journalists, influencers and significant social media users to lose protection that they would otherwise enjoy under GAR#334 and become belligerents in a war merely due to their use of social media to reveal information that may be considered "clandestine" or "espionage" depending on which side (if any) they fall among belligerents in a war;

"Who could have thought that 'wartime reporter' means an individual who engages in wartime reporting? While we could have included a definition if we wanted, at that point one may as well define 'debris' as debris, or clarify that 'wartime reporters' refers to the plural of wartime reporter."

3. Ambiguous definitions on "espionage" activities, resulting in uncertainty over the overt reporting from one side of a war and the lack of physical or legal recourse for the activity under those conditions, as well as for reporters to effectively become belligerents of their own accord so long as they are not secretive, do not transport supplies, do not direct the use of force (presumably themselves), and do at least some legitimate journalism;

"The latter clause is rather confusing. If one is not secretive, does not transport supplies, does not direct the use of force, and does at least some legitimate journalism, then they would fit the definition of a journalist and not fit Section 5 -- they would therefore still be classed as non-combatants."

"Further, 'the overt reporting from one side of a war' vitiates any clandestine quality that the journalism may have had. For a member nation to argue that someone who is identifying as a reporter and open that they are engaging in wartime reporting is engaging in 'clandestine' wartime reporting is at best bad faith (prohibited by GA #2) and at worst outright non-compliance with both the text and spirit."

4. The absence of any accountability towards "open-source intelligence", which has become far more important in warfare in recent times as a result of developments in technologies across the NS multi-verse, such as the use of low-cost satellites, very low-cost positioning systems and mobile phones with camera and video functions, inexpensive drones, "top kill" tank bombs, and other technologies not prevalent since the esteemed Assembly last considered this issue;

"This does not explain why this is a problem, or how the target does this."

Ooc: I believe that "NS multi-verse" is considered metagaming, so I would advise removing that.

[Heidgaudr]

The absence of any protection for police brutality (under GAR#554) which protected reporters covering civil unrest and disturbances despite the use of military-grade equipment on civilians, rendering this resolution toothless in comparison;

"While it would have been preferrible for this to also address police brutality, why is this an issue necessitating repeal? It does not affect the strength of the resolution's mandates vis-a-vis military conflicts. Alone, this is not sufficient to justify repeal."

"I disagree with both above points. Due to the peculiarities of the World Assembly process wherein we aren't able to amend legislation, we see omnibus-style bills as generally being worse than more modular approaches to law-making. Once you start tacking on different parts that are only tangentially related - such as this case with protecting reporters from militaries and police forces - each individual piece is more susceptible to being repealed.

"To clarify, if the suggestions regarding police brutality from Simone Republic's delegation were implemented, both halves would be concerned not only with their own flaws, but the flaws of the other. If one gets repealed both get repealed. We see this as a significant flaw and it only serves to make the bill more vulnerable to being repealed later on - and for wartime reporters to lose their protection."

2. A definition of "wartime reporting", but not who is a wartime reporter, resulting in (combined with section 4(c) of the said resolution) potentially allows citizen journalists, influencers and significant social media users to lose protection that they would otherwise enjoy under GAR#334 and become belligerents in a war merely due to their use of social media to reveal information that may be considered "clandestine" or "espionage" depending on which side (if any) they fall among belligerents in a war;

"Who could have thought that 'wartime reporter' means an individual who engages in wartime reporting? While we could have included a definition if we wanted, at that point one may as well define 'debris' as debris, or clarify that 'wartime reporters' refers to the plural of wartime reporter."

"My impression was always that the focus on defining 'reporting' instead of 'reporter' was specifically to make it easier for non-traditional media to be protected by law. My office was left scratching their heads on this claim. Does the delegation from Simone Republic have a clearer explanation on how non-traditional media aren't actually protected?"

3. Ambiguous definitions on "espionage" activities, resulting in uncertainty over the overt reporting from one side of a war and the lack of physical or legal recourse for the activity under those conditions, as well as for reporters to effectively become belligerents of their own accord so long as they are not secretive, do not transport supplies, do not direct the use of force (presumably themselves), and do at least some legitimate journalism;

"The latter clause is rather confusing. If one is not secretive, does not transport supplies, does not direct the use of force, and does at least some legitimate journalism, then they would fit the definition of a journalist and not fit Section 5 -- they would therefore still be classed as non-combatants."

"Further, 'the overt reporting from one side of a war' vitiates any clandestine quality that the journalism may have had. For a member nation to argue that someone who is identifying as a reporter and open that they are engaging in wartime reporting is engaging in 'clandestine' wartime reporting is at best bad faith (prohibited by GA #2) and at worst outright non-compliance with both the text and spirit."

"Any examples of how the definition of espionage extends too broadly and hurts journalists?"

[Starman of Stardust]

"Who could have thought that 'wartime reporter' means an individual who engages in wartime reporting? While we could have included a definition if we wanted, at that point one may as well define 'debris' as debris, or clarify that 'wartime reporters' refers to the plural of wartime reporter."

"My impression was always that the focus on defining 'reporting' instead of 'reporter' was specifically to make it easier for non-traditional media to be protected by law. My office was left scratching their heads on this claim. Does the delegation from Simone Republic have a clearer explanation on how non-traditional media aren't actually protected?"

"We elected to define 'reporting' as opposed to 'reporter' because it makes it easier to legislate on the activity, and a definition of a word whose meaning in context is self-evident creates a possibility of harming the entire proposal with no real benefit."

[Honeydewistania]

We fully support this measure. We do have some comments however.

We feel that police brutality is not the best example for other conflicts not protected by the resolution. For example, paramilitary conflicts will not be covered by the resolution if an ordinary military force is not involved.

We are unsure of the merits of argument 3. If it's not secretive, then it'd be pretty useless to try and gain a strategic advantage through spying. Allowing journalists to do their job if they don't get involved in combat seems pretty in line with the intentions of this proposal.

We believe that more elaboration on the cause and effects of the problems in argument 4, not how it is conducted, would be appreciated.

Additionally, the most important argument against the entire resolution is missing - the proposal does not even protect journalists. As journalists cannot be "discriminated against in travel", member nations can simply stop any and all journalists that try to enter by applying that rule equally to everyone, rendering the entire proposal useless. We feel that this is an important inclusion.

[Starman of Stardust]

Additionally, the most important argument against the entire resolution is missing - the proposal does not even protect journalists. As journalists cannot be "discriminated against in travel", member nations can simply stop any and all journalists that try to enter by applying that rule equally to everyone, rendering the entire proposal useless. We feel that this is an important inclusion.

"Firstly, even if this was true, it would only render one particular phrase in one subclause 'useless'. It would not by any stretch of the imagination 'render the entire proposal useless'."

"Secondly, GA #601 would prohibit member nations from fully denying any civilian access to a warzone. I do not see how your mission's previous defense in debate of the target that Section 3e of 601 would allow member nations to wholly prohibit civilian access to warzones holds water; per the noscitur a sociis canon of construction, I would interpret 'general public' in 3e as being determined by 'specialized training' (or lack thereof) 'to mitigate' said dangers. A wartime reporter who is entering a warzone to collect information for journalism is likely indeed trained to survive in a warzone, would therefore not be considered part of the 'general public' for the purposes of that mandate, and it would accordingly be illegal to invoke said exception as reason to wholly prohibit access to warzones by wartime reporters as civilians."

[Simone Republic]

"My impression was always that the focus on defining 'reporting' instead of 'reporter' was specifically to make it easier for non-traditional media to be protected by law. My office was left scratching their heads on this claim. Does the delegation from Simone Republic have a clearer explanation on how non-traditional media aren't actually protected?"

I'd defer to PotatoFarmers to edit that part as much of the argument on 4c and the interaction with social media / citizen journalism was developed by PotatoFarmers on the last forum thread and the GAR#601 issues are from Honeydewistania, as above, and there is an argument on this resolution violating GAR#345 which I'd also defer to those more knowledged.

[PotatoFarmers]

"My impression was always that the focus on defining 'reporting' instead of 'reporter' was specifically to make it easier for non-traditional media to be protected by law. My office was left scratching their heads on this claim. Does the delegation from Simone Republic have a clearer explanation on how non-traditional media aren't actually protected?"

I'd defer to PotatoFarmers to edit that part as much of the argument on 4c and the interaction with social media / citizen journalism was developed by PotatoFarmers on the last forum thread and the GAR#601 issues are from Honeydewistania, as above, and there is an argument on this resolution violating GAR#345 which I'd also defer to those more knowledged.

I removed the word "insta" from the repeal title as I suspect the repeal will take awhile.

OOC:
I was indeed consulted on clause 2 of the repeal, which was written based on my OOC comments raised here.

The original proposal's definition was:

1a. "Wartime reporting" refers to the gathering of information conducted from a warzone for the purpose of said information's publication as journalism; as well as the provision of technical assistance in the same.

Quoting the American Press Institute on the definition of journalism, "Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities." Notice the lack of mention of how the news and information is presented. The Britannica encyclopedia makes it even more clear, "journalism [is] the collection, preparation, and distribution of news and related commentary and feature materials through such print and electronic media as newspapers, magazines, books, blogs, webcasts, podcasts, social networking and social media sites, and e-mail as well as through radio, motion pictures, and television". As such, the definition as is would definitely have to include both standard journalism as we know it, as well as citizen journalism, which would include all the Twitter & Tik-Tok users that use their social media to spread news about the events on the battlefield.

Whether defining "wartime reporting" or "war reporter", to me, the fundamental change has to be that you need to either better define what constitutes as "clandestine collection [...] of classified information" to better protect the citizen journalists. Get that out of the way, and this issue will no longer be an issue.

[Starman of Stardust]

Potentially allowing significant users of social media to lose protection otherwise available under GAR#334 ("Protected Status in Wartime") and become belligerents in a war (inadvertently or otherwise) merely due to their use of social media to reveal information that may be considered "clandestine" ;

Ambiguities in section (4) resulting in the possible interpretation of social media users (and others engaged in citizen journalism, even merely as good neighbours informing each other of incoming missiles or the progress of war in general) as OSINT participants (and in turn as combatants), and causing them to lose their protection under GAR#334 ("Protected Status in Wartime") and GAR#345 ("Proscription on Living Shields")

"Let's not make baseless claims of contradiction, mmkay?"

"This is the third time I have told you, ambassador, that GA #334 does not grant any entity 'protected status'. All it does is prevent the false invocation of protected status. Further, even if 334 did grant entities protected status, the target's exceptions do not withhold protected status from any individual in a general sense. The exception merely says that "This resolution does not protect any wartime reporter", not anything about past resolutions."

[Honeydewistania]

At the moment, the repeal draft contains far too many references to previously passed resolutions than actually elaborating on the arguments

What is argument 3 even saying? I'm confused as to how separate pending resolutions on LEOs are even relevant. Clause 4 simply says that loopholes aren't closed, but doesn't say what they are. The whole draft needs to be reworked

[Simone Republic]

At the moment, the repeal draft contains far too many references to previously passed resolutions than actually elaborating on the arguments

What is argument 3 even saying? I'm confused as to how separate pending resolutions on LEOs are even relevant. Clause 4 simply says that loopholes aren't closed, but doesn't say what they are. The whole draft needs to be reworked

Noted. I will defer to you on the re-write.