War Correspondent Protection and Regulation Act

[Liberimarcat]

If no one else has any comments I will submit this proposal by the end of today.

This rush will only serve your discredit.

It's been up for a few days, now that people are commenting on it I probably won't submit it today.

[Kenmoria]

“I recommend you to number your active clauses, to make them easier to reference.”

[Attempted Socialism]

This rush will only serve your discredit.

It's been up for a few days, now that people are commenting on it I probably won't submit it today.

Well, if you are so sure that no flaws can be found, all questions are answered, and nothing can be improved, I cannot help you. But normally successful drafters realise that this is a marathon rather than a sprint.

[Liberimarcat]

“I recommend you to number your active clauses, to make them easier to reference.”

"Consider it done, representative."

[Liberimarcat]

It's been up for a few days, now that people are commenting on it I probably won't submit it today.

Well, if you are so sure that no flaws can be found, all questions are answered, and nothing can be improved, I cannot help you. But normally successful drafters realise that this is a marathon rather than a sprint.

I said I'm not submitting it today because obviously it's still not perfect, I don't know what you want from me.

[Araraukar]

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

OOC: No such category as Human Rights. And I'm not entirely certain how this would be a Civil Right one either. What's the "right", here?

Knowing that the previous legislation concerning the safety of war correspondents was rightfully struck out null and void,

Not sure this is going to help you.

Understanding that correspondents do not have legal immunity and can be either swayed by personal bias, a third-party, or ignorance of the law to commit unlawful acts,

Ignorance of the law has never been a valid defence from the law.

1. Defines a war correspondent as a journalist who reports details from a firsthand perspective in a war zone,

To my understanding war correspondents report stuff to do with the war, specifically?

2. Mandates that all war correspondents be marked as such and requires their press affiliation to be visible,

Does "press affiliation" mean which magazine/news channel they're reporting for, or a general "member of the press" marker? And "be marked as such" sounds like animals or inanimate objects being tagged. I could totally see some military people not liking civilians in warzones require members of press carry a huge sign saying something offensive about the enemy, just to get them shot...

3. Establishes that militants may not fire upon, assault, or otherwise attack a war correspondent physically,

You do know that stuff like artillery does not care WHO is at the WHAT it's aimed at, right? Or that occasionally bombs fall in the wrong places? This would make more sense as an "intentionally target" ban. Because otherwise you could protect strategic military targets just by putting war journalists on them.

Also, what are "militants"?

4. Prohibits militant bodies from taking a war correspondent as a prisoner of war under any circumstances unless they violate any of the regulations that apply to their actions and behavior, and only if specified in said regulation,

Civilians don't get taken as prisoners of war to begin with, so this can be removed. And what are militant bodies?

5. Forbids militant officials from bribing a war correspondent or threaten them with violence to influence the correspondents actions, and further forbids a war correspondent from soliciting or accepting bribes,

This is plural instead of possessive. And what are militant officials?

6. Clarifies that while war correspondents in their work must have leeway to report and conduct interviews, military officials remain under no obligation to answer,

If they don't want to get shot at or thrown in the brig for being spies, I'd add something about the journalists not being allowed to interfere with military actions. They should also NOT be allowed to act as spies, which I see conspiciously missing from the proposal's current form.

7. Emphasises that employing war correspondents by militant groups as defence against attacks invalidates their protected status under the definition, and establishes said correspondents as militants that aren't subject to these regulations. Furthermore, if a war correspondent actively aids a belligerent in a conflict, the enemy is no longer subject to clause 4 in that correspondent's case.

They don't need to be employed to be used as targeting shields. I'd say just to add the "not allowed to interfere with military activities/actions" somewhere. And rather than "subject to clause 4" just say "no longer protected by this resolution". And what "the enemy"? Whose enemy?

[Liberimarcat]

If they don't want to get shot at or thrown in the brig for being spies, I'd add something about the journalists not being allowed to interfere with military actions. They should also NOT be allowed to act as spies, which I see conspiciously missing from the proposal's current form.

As seen in the last clause and mentioned in the next quote, I said aiding a belligerent, which of course means spying, in which case they CAN be thrown in the brig and are to be treated as any other POW, and if that means being shot at or executed so be it.

They don't need to be employed to be used as targeting shields. I'd say just to add the "not allowed to interfere with military activities/actions" somewhere. And rather than "subject to clause 4" just say "no longer protected by this resolution". And what "the enemy"? Whose enemy?

employ v. 2. make use of.
I meant this definition.

I've change the category to civil rights because it's the rights of correspondents. I've also fixed the plural-possessive error.

Everything else is a bit silly. What's a militant body? A body that engages in militant activities. Armies, naval forces, paramilitary, et cetera. Militant officials? Officials in a militant body. Army officers, naval generals, at cetera. Every flaw you find in the clauses is fixed by another. Read the whole thing and then look back at what you've said.

[The New California Republic]

I notice that you are doing edits without preserving the previous drafts. It's a good idea to put previous drafts in a spoiler in the OP.

[Liberimarcat]

I notice that you are doing edits without preserving the previous drafts. It's a good idea to put previous drafts in a spoiler in the OP.

My apologies, I'm new to proposal-writing and am unfamiliar with the etiquette. For any further edits I will do that.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Two pointers...

Militant =/= military. If you want to talk about militaries, use the right word. Also adjectives and nouns confusion, possibly.

Aiding belligerent =/= spying. They could aid belligerents by helping to shoot other combatants, easily. If you specifically want to address spying, you will need something much more specific.

Try to use combatants/civilians instead of belligerents/whatever is the antonym, as the latter term is much more vague and does not necessarily have anything to do with military actions.

All in all, your proposal uses words that do not have the specific meanings you think they do, which causes issues. I am not the only one that has tried to point them out. Being hostile when we try to help you, is going to make people less likely to help you. We are criticising your text, not you.

[Kenmoria]

“Alter clause 3 to be something more similar to ‘Prohibits belligerents from intentionally targeting war correspondents with any form of physical attack,’ in order to ensure that accidental shootings, which are very possible in warfare, are not penalised.”

[Liberimarcat]

“Alter clause 3 to be something more similar to ‘Prohibits belligerents from intentionally targeting war correspondents with any form of physical attack,’ in order to ensure that accidental shootings, which are very possible in warfare, are not penalised.”

Done. Also changed the term belligerent to combatant. I stand by the term militant, in technical terms this act applies to all combatants of war, terrorist, national, or otherwise, even if more unlawful organizations might not follow them, they are technically obligated.

[Liberimarcat]

I am now finalizing the draft for submission.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Militant continues to be an issue. Member nations should not be held responsible for war correspondents' safety uf they are so fucking stupid as to walk into the HQ of a mafia or terrorist organization's HQ.

If you want to use WAR correspondent, then limit this to militaries. Punishing member nations with WACC for the actions of criminals and terrorists who they are fighting against, is just stupid and unfair.

[WayNeacTia]

If you want to use WAR correspondent, then limit this to militaries. Punishing member nations with WACC for the actions of criminals and terrorists who they are fighting against, is just stupid and unfair.

The chances of this even scaring quorum, let alone passing are extremely remote. I wouldn't worry too much.

[Liberimarcat]

Despite campaigning, and thinking it over, I see this will not reach quorum in its current state. I will redraft and then resubmit once the militant issue is resolved.

[Liberimarcat]

Pulled proposal for quorum and did some well-needed retouching.

[Liberimarcat]

Another last call for queries, as per requests I have discarded the term militant in all locations in the draft.

[Attempted Socialism]

"Clause 7 is still poorly phrased and unnecessary. If you included the neutrality in the definition of war correspondent -- as we suggested before this failed to reach the floor the first time -- you could discard clause 7 entirely and clean up the draft."

OOC: You're still rushing this. It's likely going to fail to reach quorum again, because of your impatience.

[Liberimarcat]

"Clause 7 is still poorly phrased and unnecessary. If you included the neutrality in the definition of war correspondent -- as we suggested before this failed to reach the floor the first time -- you could discard clause 7 entirely and clean up the draft."

OOC: You're still rushing this. It's likely going to fail to reach quorum again, because of your impatience.

"Fixed, clause 7 has been discarded and the other clauses have been slightly revised to reflect it."

OOC: I didn't think I was rushing it, I've never done this before so I thought since no one was talking it was time.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I didn't think I was rushing it, I've never done this before so I thought since no one was talking it was time.

OOC: Sweetie, we have lives outside of NS. Some people struggle to get online at all, given internet cafes and libraries and schools and such are closed in many RL nations currently. Just because no-one's posted in a few hours or even a few days, doesn't mean we weren't going to. Tomorrow (June 28th) is going to be my first "free of obligations" day since June 19th; I just haven't had much time to spend on NS.

Your definition still lacks the bit about war. War correspondents don't just randomly report about horse races from 1st person POV from a war zone, they specifically report about the details of the war.

Clause 2, "be marked as such" sounds like them getting tagged by an external force, like vehicles or buildings. Shouldn't they instead "carry a visible identifier" or something like that? And is "press affiliation" just them being journalist or them being affiliated with a specific magazine/TV channel/etc.?

Clause 3 would enable strategic military targets (otherwise known as "fair game according to rules of war") to be shielded by having a war correspondent standing on/next to it. Not gonna fly.

Clause 4, civilians can't be taken as prisoners of war to begin with, so the clause is unnecessary. Also, the "unless they violate their neutrality" sounds like it's talking about the official militaries' neutrality, not the journalists'.

Clauses 5 and 6, instead of "military officials", I'd use "combatants". It encompasses everyone from recruits to generals, and I'm fairly use you didn't mean to force anyone to stop taking cover from artillery fire to answer a civilian's questions about stuff they can't mention to civilians unless they want to end up in prison themselves.

This completely lacks any mentions of journalists leaking strategic or tactical plans to the enemy, under the guise of "the public must know". But happily has nothing about journalists being thrown in prison or mental asylum for their own protection.

[Liberimarcat]

OOC: I didn't think I was rushing it, I've never done this before so I thought since no one was talking it was time.

OOC: Sweetie, we have lives outside of NS. Some people struggle to get online at all, given internet cafes and libraries and schools and such are closed in many RL nations currently. Just because no-one's posted in a few hours or even a few days, doesn't mean we weren't going to. Tomorrow (June 28th) is going to be my first "free of obligations" day since June 19th; I just haven't had much time to spend on NS.

Your definition still lacks the bit about war. War correspondents don't just randomly report about horse races from 1st person POV from a war zone, they specifically report about the details of the war.

Clause 2, "be marked as such" sounds like them getting tagged by an external force, like vehicles or buildings. Shouldn't they instead "carry a visible identifier" or something like that? And is "press affiliation" just them being journalist or them being affiliated with a specific magazine/TV channel/etc.?

Clause 3 would enable strategic military targets (otherwise known as "fair game according to rules of war") to be shielded by having a war correspondent standing on/next to it. Not gonna fly.

Clause 4, civilians can't be taken as prisoners of war to begin with, so the clause is unnecessary. Also, the "unless they violate their neutrality" sounds like it's talking about the official militaries' neutrality, not the journalists'.

Clauses 5 and 6, instead of "military officials", I'd use "combatants". It encompasses everyone from recruits to generals, and I'm fairly use you didn't mean to force anyone to stop taking cover from artillery fire to answer a civilian's questions about stuff they can't mention to civilians unless they want to end up in prison themselves.

This completely lacks any mentions of journalists leaking strategic or tactical plans to the enemy, under the guise of "the public must know". But happily has nothing about journalists being thrown in prison or mental asylum for their own protection.

OOC: Made some edits and wording changes, see new draft. I'm also personally sorry I've come off so strong, I didn't want my first crack at a WA proposal to be so hostile, and I'm sorry. I've taken your words into heavy consideration and have edited accordingly.

[Attempted Socialism]

"Clause 7 is still poorly phrased and unnecessary. If you included the neutrality in the definition of war correspondent -- as we suggested before this failed to reach the floor the first time -- you could discard clause 7 entirely and clean up the draft."

OOC: You're still rushing this. It's likely going to fail to reach quorum again, because of your impatience.

"Fixed, clause 7 has been discarded and the other clauses have been slightly revised to reflect it."

OOC: I didn't think I was rushing it, I've never done this before so I thought since no one was talking it was time.

OOC: I should probably have been clearer. I don't think "neutral manner" cuts it; neutral in what regard? Journalistic? Ideal neutral reporting? Leaving out clearly personal opinion? Or militarily? Neutral how, then?
This is why I suggested a clearer definition originally: "Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, "war correspondent" as a journalist who reports firsthand from a warzone and without aiding or partaking in the conflict,"
Even this definition, upon re-reading, could be better. Aid could hypothetically be interpreted as casting light on a situation in which a superior military power is crushing a weaker (This is often alleged in the Israel-Palestine conflict, for instance). It could be "without militarily aiding either side or otherwise partaking in the conflict" for clarity, I guess.

When I say rushing it, it's because you seem more focused on having a resolution to submit, rather than making sure it will go through if it reaches the floor. June is often examination period, or getting ready before the summer holidays. Even giving a draft a month is a fairly short drafting period, just FYI (I have seen drafts posted a year before or more being revived, reworked and submitted). For the future, I would suggest bumping in some fashion if it falls off first page, and involving people more in your drafting process -- take, for instance, the definition and clause 7. You could have mulled it over, written a few variants and asked for feedback on each one. People can then read and respond to that, and it will pull in more people to give feedback on the entire draft. I know it's a drawn-out, painstakingly slow process, but it's the most surefire way to know whether there are still flaws in your draft and how likely you are to reach quorum.

[Liberimarcat]

OOC: Updated war correspondent definition once again, tell me if it's clear enough or needs more work.

[Liberimarcat]

Updated definition again slightly.