RefugiaBoard

.
~ Useful Links ~
.

---

• Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism

---

• Forum thread

---

• General Assembly voting page

Summary

In times of war and strife, journalists have historically been essential conduits of information for those out of harm's way. They observe conditions, relay developments, reveal abuses, and generally act as both a means of documentation and a check on potential misconduct which may otherwise fly under the radar. Traditionally, we'd call these people war correspondents. Now, however, with the increasing urbanization of warfare, theories of fourth generation war, and frequent domestic unrest within localities, the responsibility goes beyond formal warfare to encompass reporting on all types of violent action. To this end, the term "conflict journalism" is emerging to refer to those who enter and report on scenes of violent dispute.

Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism, written by Refugi member Refuge Isle, is a bill concerning this form of journalism. It aims to establish standards for covering scenes of conflict, regarding both the behavior of the reporter and their treatment by involved parties. This is an evaluation of the mechanisms the bill seeks to enact and how they would impact journalistic work.

Analysis

This resolution contains four key definitions. The first three are as follows:

- Conflict zone: "a battlefield, combat area, or zone where military-grade equipment is deployed to defeat, rout, or suppress opposing forces"; this would include not just traditional warzones but also sites of emerging civil wars or battles within cities, etc.
- Conflict journalist: "a reporter or a reporter's technical assistant, operating independent of any belligerent faction, and employed in providing journalism from an ongoing conflict zone or its immediate surrounding area"; includes both reporters and their staff, but excludes affiliates of any party engaged in the conflict, e.g: state media.
- Act of warfare: "The capturing or killing of combatants; the intentional damage or destruction of equipment or vehicles deployed to the conflict; or the transportation of personnel or supplies for a party of the conflict"

We'll circle back around to the fourth term a little later. For now, let's focus on section two, which lays out a handful of clear rules. Conflict journalists (as defined above) are to be treated as civilian non-combatants - people who are not participating in the actual fighting - and protected as such. They are to be allowed to conduct journalism in or near conflict zones (put a pin in that one for a minute); they're not allowed to carry or use weaponry in these zones, or hire armed personnel; and they're not allowed access to military facilities without express permission of the management. I think most of these speak for themselves and are pretty easy to understand. There are some arguments to be made about whether journalists should be permitted to carry means of self defense, and this may be a reason some would vote against, but bear in mind that such a provision has proven quite unpopular and may make any future law that much harder to pass.

Section three concerns the rights of conflict journalists and what member state governments are allowed to do. Such governments are prohibited from: a) preventing conflict journalists from accessing or moving within conflict zones; b) retaliating against journalists because of their coverage, or fears concerning it; and c) detaining conflict journalists in order to prevent them from accessing the conflict zone. This all serves to ensure that corrupt or bad faith governments won't be allowed to quash coverage of wars within their borders. Again, it's pretty clear language. Section four follows up on this by clarifying that kidnapping, killing, or otherwise targeting a conflict journalist is considered a war crime.

But the most contentious portion of this draft, which deserves extra attention, is the aforementioned fourth definition. This text defines an Act of espionage to mean "the clandestine gathering, reporting, or delivery of information for the purposes of benefiting one or more belligerent factions, except to uphold international law." This comes up twice in the text: section 2(b) clarifies that journalists are free to undertake any journalism that isn't an act of espionage [in or near a conflict zone], and section 5 explains that any conflict journalist who commits either an act of warfare or an act of espionage will no longer be considered a civilian non-combatant, and so will not receive any of these protections.

Now, there have been a lot of bad takes regarding the implications and reach of this definition. It's been claimed, for instance, that it would prevent a reporter from stating facts about military operations, on the grounds that this could benefit an opposing faction. This is false. The definition contains two key requirements to mitigate this: first, that this reporting be clandestine (of illicit or subversive secrecy, as a common definition); and second, that it be "for the purposes of benefiting one or more belligerent factions." (emphasis mine) This definition would cover, for instance, a journalist overhearing a radio communication and relaying it to an active combatant for their benefit, or delivering messages between outposts. While reporting on a human rights violation may cause harm to one side of a conflict (and thus benefit another), that reporting isn't being done in any targeted way and it's not an intentional political action; it's a statement of truth. These provisions will never pertain to active journalism, so long as that journalism is not being done in a targeted, politically motivated way.

Recommendation

Determining that the provisions contained within are reasonable and effective methods of both protecting conflict journalists and placing checks on their conduct, the Refugia Councillor of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting for Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism.