[Passed] Repeal "Protect War Correspondents"

[The Black Hat Guy]

Against. Sorry, but I think that a reasonable good faith interpretation of this resolution eliminates many of your complaints, and in any case I'm not certain enough that a replacement will be passed that I'm willing to forsake the current resolution.

[Kahanistan]

Ambassador Al-Shakur shook his head. "We can't trust rogue nations to follow a good faith interpretation, especially since this resolution is so controversial even among those who support a free press. Rogue nations will take full advantage of the fourth clause to deny entry to journalists who want the truth. That goes double if, as in our case, many of our antagonists are not even WA members. They will deny our journalists entry, or deny them protection, execute them as spies. This resolution explicitly allows nations to do this to war correspondents, and must be replaced with one that actually provides protection."

[The Saint James Islands]

For future reference to vote campaigners (Douria included, in this case), I'll leave this little snippet from the Charter of the Democratic Socialist Assembly:

Article II, Section II, Subsection V: The World Assembly Delegate

Clause VIII. The World Assembly Delegate shall cast a symbolic vote in the World Assembly on all resolutions which reflects the preferences and opinions of a simple majority of World Assembly-member Residents that voted on the resolutions; however the World Assembly Delegate may publicly issue a dissenting opinion as to why they disagree with the majority of the DSA’s World Assembly members.

My vote is therefore bound to reflect the majority of residents of the DSA and by a 33-2 margin, it is bound to be AGAINST this resolution. I cannot possibly support it in good faith with my duties as Delegate or in my own personal conscience. For that, my apologies to Douria.

[Mosktopia]

I am troubled by the fact that this is the second proposal in a row where a significant margin of the popular vote is being outdone by large delegacies. As of now, the vote stands at 3,385 FOR to 3,046 AGAINST (53% to 47%). But the popular vote among individual nations is 1,012 FOR to 1,408 AGAINST (42% to 58%).

A similar trend was observed in the latest On Abortion repeal, where a majority of individual nations supported repeal but the delegate votes swung the balance. It makes me feel like the WA has a serious problem: we're hardly a democracy when the popular vote is consistently being overruled by enough sufficiently-large delegacies.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I am troubled by the fact that this is the second proposal in a row where a significant margin of the popular vote is being outdone by large delegacies. As of now, the vote stands at 3,385 FOR to 3,046 AGAINST (53% to 47%). But the popular vote among individual nations is 1,012 FOR to 1,408 AGAINST (42% to 58%).

A similar trend was observed in the latest On Abortion repeal, where a majority of individual nations supported repeal but the delegate votes swung the balance. It makes me feel like the WA has a serious problem: we're hardly a democracy when the popular vote is consistently being overruled by enough sufficiently-large delegacies.

OOC: That's hardly a new trend. It has been observed many times in the past: I think GR used to keep some kind of log of such votes, and I seem to recall L&E doing so before. So far as I know, when admin has commented, they've never indicated a willingness to change the voting mechanics, though.

[The Dourian Embassy]

We may yet see that change. I've been watching the trends. When Cerb voted against early(thanks alot by the way), the nay votes started to pour in. As the vote started to get closer, the nay votes began to slow up. Now that the "for" vote is winning, the individual "for" votes are coming in faster than the nays.

If anything this really punches a hole in all the times I've tried to argue in private that the average voters aren't lemmings. I still don't believe they are, but I don't think I can honestly argue the point anymore and not be laughed out of the room.

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

A similar trend was observed in the latest On Abortion repeal, where a majority of individual nations supported repeal but the delegate votes swung the balance. It makes me feel like the WA has a serious problem: we're hardly a democracy when the popular vote is consistently being overruled by enough sufficiently-large delegacies.

Meh, given that we've voted against both proposals we are not that troubled by it!

-BH

OOC: Perhaps it's because I'm a Yankee, but the idea of blocks of voting having a hand in determining things instead of direct popular vote doesn't trouble me much. In the game, for one thing, I see delegate votes as grounding the WA proposal-writing game in the regional role-play game. I personally think that's a good thing.

[Dai Coon Ree]

Ambassador Al-Shakur shook his head. "We can't trust rogue nations to follow a good faith interpretation, especially since this resolution is so controversial even among those who support a free press. Rogue nations will take full advantage of the fourth clause to deny entry to journalists who want the truth. That goes double if, as in our case, many of our antagonists are not even WA members. They will deny our journalists entry, or deny them protection, execute them as spies. This resolution explicitly allows nations to do this to war correspondents, and must be replaced with one that actually provides protection."

*Ambassador Elim Gla'Semue raises with a smile after hearing this from his noble colleque*

I agree to a certain point but I belive my colleque is mislead here. First of all the term "Roque Nation" startles me as this is such a loosly used term for everyone not being like yourself in many ways. Second we should bear in mind that WAR is not a Teaparty you report about in any shaddy newsmagazine and that WAR is a dangerous thing. Thirdly I like to ask what would "Protection" mean in light of military strategies being revealed by a nosy Corrospondent? Is this already spying? Does the "PRESS" Card equal a "Card Blanche" to stick your nose in whatever you like to stick it in? In all honesty this whole "Protect War Corrospondents" thing was a hoax from its very beginning. I voted FOR the thing to be empowered at first and voted AGAINST this silly Repeal, now I am done with it. Thank you for listening Members of this noble Gremium.

*He sits down looking over some new messages*

[Fantoche]

Fantoche supports this repeal. I concur with many of the points raised. In regard to GA#170:

War Correspondent as an employed individual that relays information in regards to multi-national conflict to a third party with the intent of making this information available to the public.

Although another resolution could cover other conflicts, I believe this resolution missed an opportunity here by excluding correspondents covering civil wars and revolutions.

Militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions, inclusive of confiscating their equipment without justification, wounding the individual, or executing them without adequate reasoning. Should a militant fail to comply, both the individual, and the host member-state of the individual shall be held accountable.

Although clause 1 gives examples that are uncontroversial, the actual requirement is that militants not interact with the intent of stymieing actions; the clause doesn't distinguish between justified interactions and unjustified interactions. It's also disconcerting that execution without adequate reasoning, rather than execution in general, by militants is used as an example of a violation of the clause. "Militant" calls to mind, for me at least, someone more akin to a partisan or irregular, so I would have preferred the term soldier to be used. A country can't necessarily be expected to be able to control and be responsible for the actions of independent armed groups. In addition, if country A invades country B and country A's militants indiscriminately execute war correspondents, is country A or B accountable? Clause 1 says "host country", which would indicate country B, but country A's forces are the ones violating clause 1.

Individual member-states may deny war correspondents access to their territory, and as such, war correspondents must adhere to standard immigration policies prior to entering; war correspondents that enter without proper verification are exempt from all protection granted by the provisions of this resolution.

I would prefer expulsion, or only exempting the country from accountability if the person is harmed, rather than saying that militants can interfere with the correspondent however they wish simply because the individual entered illegally.

War correspondents may aid any belligerent during conflict; by doing so, their protection will be nullified until post-conflict, exclusive of self-defense.

I agree with the repeal; an individual should not be able to spy on one side as a war correspondent in order to escape the consequences for espionage. On the other hand, however, I also think that a war correspondent should be able to, say, help an injured soldier without losing their protections for the duration of the conflict. On a related note, this is also a concern if the correspondent is from the nation he or she is covering, as the individual could be exposed to regular reprisals from militants who want to stymie the correspondent's reporting.

War correspondents that abuse their immunity by compromising the war effort in favor of any participating party shall have their immunity relinquished, and are subject to persecution by the afflicted nation, as are the home nation of the correspondent.

I agree with the repeal here as well; the clause is vague. Although a good faith interpretation of "compromising the war effort" limits the issue, there are certainly nations that would abuse this in general, and even reasonable nations could be tempted when facing defeat or consistently negative coverage. The use of persecution in place of prosecution is also an issue. I'm concerned that the correspondent's home nation is subject to "persecution" by the "afflicted" nation; similar to my objection to clause 1, I don't think a country should necessarily be held accountable simply because the individual is from there.

[Controlitia WA]

Ambassador Al-Shakur shook his head. "We can't trust rogue nations to follow a good faith interpretation, especially since this resolution is so controversial even among those who support a free press. Rogue nations will take full advantage of the fourth clause to deny entry to journalists who want the truth. That goes double if, as in our case, many of our antagonists are not even WA members. They will deny our journalists entry, or deny them protection, execute them as spies. This resolution explicitly allows nations to do this to war correspondents, and must be replaced with one that actually provides protection."

Emphasis mine. That's why I voted against this resolution. Out of the last 10 resolutions, 7 were repeals. I don't believe the other 3 were replacements, but perhaps those repeals were so far in the past that I no longer remember them. In my mind, Douria is playing the same game Kenny did/does, but in a different manner. Douria magnifies errors in the resolutions, and then gets them repealed. While my in-character Dictator thanks you, OOC I dislike these repeals, because without replacement it seems to run contrary to the replacement language used in the repeal.

[Kecoughtan Tribe]

My fellow Delegates/WA Members, I urge you to vote AGAINST this proposal. The WA Membership is against you. They do NOT want this repealed, to repeal it would to be going against the people that have elected us to be Delegates. I urge you to vote no as I have and as the WA majority is voting.


Kecoughtan Tribe
WA Delegate for Hampton

[Separatist Peoples]

My fellow Delegates/WA Members, I urge you to vote AGAINST this proposal. The WA Membership is against you. They do NOT want this repealed, to repeal it would to be going against the people that have elected us to be Delegates. I urge you to vote no as I have and as the WA majority is voting.


Kecoughtan Tribe
WA Delegate for Hampton

...What? Clearly, the citizens of the WA are for this, since the repeal is passing.

[Kecoughtan Tribe]

My fellow Delegates/WA Members, I urge you to vote AGAINST this proposal. The WA Membership is against you. They do NOT want this repealed, to repeal it would to be going against the people that have elected us to be Delegates. I urge you to vote no as I have and as the WA majority is voting.


Kecoughtan Tribe
WA Delegate for Hampton

...What? Clearly, the citizens of the WA are for this, since the repeal is passing.

No, it is passing because of the WA Delegates that have a lot of votes behind them. If you look at the Individual WA Member voting last time I looked it was like 1,356 FOR 1,749 Against. That is INDIVIDUAL people. You have Delegates that their 1 votes carries 435 people. This proposal is passing because of those people.

[Paranoidia]

No, it is passing because of the WA Delegates that have a lot of votes behind them. If you look at the Individual WA Member voting last time I looked it was like 1,356 FOR 1,749 Against. That is INDIVIDUAL people. You have Delegates that their 1 votes carries 435 people. This proposal is passing because of those people.

Perhaps Delegates should be consulting the opinions of their region's members before casting their vote considering how much weight the vote of delegates from larger regions carry?

Now that there is the ability to have polls this would easy enough to do.

I personally have voted against this resolution and urge Delegates to ensure that their votes reflect the majority wishes of their regions.

Regards,
Paranoidia.

[Eireann Fae]

(OOC: Just thought I should point out that on the voting page, delegates can see how their own region are voting - which ought to be enough to determine how they vote. If WA member nations want to have a say in which way their delegate votes, the should themselves vote and show up in the text like so:

Amongst Monkey Island residents, voting is currently 3-2 (60% For).

Your Regional WA Delegate, Mousebumples, has voted FOR this resolution.

Eireann Fae: FOR

Not sure if Mousey actually votes like this, but if I were a delegate, it'd certainly be the standard that I'd use.)

[Ancian]

I'm against.

[Bears Armed]

Perhaps Delegates should be consulting the opinions of their region's members before casting their vote considering how much weight the vote of delegates from larger regions carry?

Some of them do.

[Bananaistan]

Or perhaps nobody has any business dictating to regions and their delegates and nations how they run their own affairs. If nations feel that their delegates aren't listening to them, then move to a region where the delegate does.

[SverigeKins]

Why are we arguing the mechanics of voting and not the repeal up for vote?

[Separatist Peoples]

...What? Clearly, the citizens of the WA are for this, since the repeal is passing.

No, it is passing because of the WA Delegates that have a lot of votes behind them. If you look at the Individual WA Member voting last time I looked it was like 1,356 FOR 1,749 Against. That is INDIVIDUAL people. You have Delegates that their 1 votes carries 435 people. This proposal is passing because of those people.

If you do were not a delegate, and your delegate was voting counter to your belief, then you could simply unendorse your delegate and withdraw your weight from the voting power of the delegate. People who care would do the same. Simple as that.

[The Dourian Embassy]

You guy realize the gap between individual voters is only 150 or so now, right?

[Utymnano]

We believe your reasoning is solid. Utymnano votes FOR this repeal.

[Svetlaka]

having heard and read the act the svetlakian stands and says "i cannot in sound mind and moral standing, support a repeal of this act although i would suggest a revision. war corrospondants should be required to sign a agreement with their givernment stating that if they are captured and killed that their government cannot reasonably react to said action, as they are ment to be a neutral party" having said this he sits back down quietly and casts his vote against the repeal of this act

[Kahanistan]

Having heard and read the act, the Svetlakian stands and says, "I cannot in sound mind and moral standing, support a repeal of this act, although I would suggest a revision. War correspondents should be required to sign an agreement with their government stating that if they are captured and killed that their government cannot reasonably react to said action, as they are meant to be a neutral party." Having said this, he sits back down quietly and casts his vote against the repeal of this act.

Ambassador Al-Shakur nodded. "My government is in complete agreement," he said. "But the veto-wielders will strike down any revised version of the resolution until the original is repealed... claim it's a contradiction between the original and the replacement. That is why Kahanistan supports a repeal, despite being a champion of journalistic freedom. We have no intention of letting the oppressive terrorist countries we have previously termed rogue nations run roughshod over our nation's journalists. And if a nation kidnaps our journalists, and our government identifies the kidnappers, it's a serious international incident... in one particular case we ended up at war with Parthia, one of the most powerful Gholgothic states."

[Svetlaka]

having heard ambassador al-shakur's statement he replies thusly " if we could work on a revision of the original article we may be able to prevent the repeal all together" the svetlakian ambassador vladimir kazkinski then reclines slightly in his seat