Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kubrikistan

Repeal "Protect War Correspondents"

Repeal "Protect War Correspondents"  

4 members have voted

  1. 1. How shall the Delegate vote?

    • For the repeal
      4
    • Against repealing
      0
    • He will abstain from voting
      0


Recommended Posts

Repeal "Protect War Correspondents"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal Resolution: GA#170 Proposed by: The Dourian Embassy


Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #170: Protect War Correspondents (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

Aware of the intent of "Protect War Correspondents"(GA#170),

Deploring however, that GA#170 fails in many regards to afford adequate protections to war correspondents,

Accepting that clause one of GA#170 states that militants are prohibited from interacting with war correspondents "with the intent of stymieing their actions", regardless of what those actions are, and knowing that such prohibitions are overly burdensome to enforce,

Understanding that clause one also states that member states "shall be held accountable" for the behavior of individual militants towards war correspondents, without any regard for the intent or actions of those member states in attempting to limit behavior that violates the resolution,

Noting that clause four states: "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,"

Believing that nations in a state of belligerence often have differing views on the existence and position of borders between them and that such differences can result in immigration policies that are impossible to properly adhere to, thus limiting the extent of the protections supposedly afforded,

Further believing that a nation can deny access to their territory through immigration policies that discriminate against war correspondents, which seriously reduces GA#170's effectiveness,

Further noting that clause five declares: "War correspondents may aid any belligerent during conflict; by doing so, their protection will be nullified until post-conflict, exclusive of self-defense,"

Regretting that clause five would allow war correspondents to engage in espionage, only losing their protections after gathering the information and aiding a particular side of the conflict successfully,

Deducing that clause six is both vague and poorly worded, using the phrase "compromising the war effort" to describe a situation in which war correspondents would have their "immunity relinquished", and thus be "subject to persecution by the afflicted nation", which is problematic for the following reasons:

* "Compromising the war effort" is a vague catch-all term which can be applied to literally any reporting done by a war correspondent that portrays a nation in a negative manner,

* "Relinquished" describes a process of voluntary action, rather than what should be an involuntary action such as "nullified" which was used in clause five,

* "Persecution" is an entirely inappropriate term for reprisal in a war zone against those who, as the clause was likely intended to outline, use the protections afforded by the resolution to assist another nation in their war efforts,

Concluding, as the original authoring nation did, that the myriad of flaws present in this resolution necessitate its repeal,

Hereby repeals "Protect War Correspondents"(GA#170).

Co-Authored by venico__924726t2.pngVenico.


Votes For: 3,697 (54%)

Votes Against: 3,213 (46%)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 5 hours

Amongst Equilism residents, voting is currently 8-2 (80% For). General Assembly debate thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hard to vote against the author who is my WA Minister in TWP) :P

Aha! Foreign influence in Equilism. I cry foul! ;)

Also, I am for the repeal due to well stated grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×