Media professionals are increasingly at risk of being wounded, killed, detained or kidnapped while reporting in armed-conflict situations. Robin Geiss, an ICRC legal expert, talks about the protection to which they, as civilians not taking part in the fighting, are entitled under international humanitarian law.
What are the main dangers faced by journalists working in armed-conflict situations?
First
let me say that the ICRC remains deeply concerned by the high number of
acts of violence against journalists and other media professionals. It
has become increasingly clear in recent conflicts that media
professionals are more and more at risk of being directly targeted, in
vi olation of international humanitarian law.
Journalists
and other media professionals working in war zones face many dangers.
Because of the very nature of their work, they are inevitably exposed to
the dangers inherent in military operations. Instead of fleeing combat,
they seek it out. Nevertheless, by far the greatest danger they face is
that of deliberate acts of violence against them.
It
is often said that the first casualty of war is truth. Accurate,
impartial media reports conveyed from conflict zones serve a fundamental
public interest: in the information era, images and news can have a
decisive impact on the outcome of armed conflicts. As a consequence, the
obstruction of journalistic tasks in times of armed conflict is
alarmingly frequent. The spectrum of interference is wide: it ranges
from access denial, censorship and harassment to arbitrary detention and
direct attacks against media professionals.
What protection do media professionals have under international humanitarian law?
At
first sight, one could get the impression that international
humanitarian law does not provide a whole lot of protection for
journalists, given that the Geneva Conventions and their Additional
Protocols contain only two explicit references to media personnel
(Article 4 A (4) of the Third Geneva Convention and Article 79 of
Additional Protocol I). However, if one reads these provisions in
conjunction with other humanitarian rules, it is clear that the
protection under existing law is quite comprehensive. Most importantly,
Article 79 of Additional Protocol I provides that journalists are
entitled to all rights and protections granted to civilians in
international armed conflicts. The same holds true in non-international
armed conflicts by virtue of customary international law ( Rule 34 of the ICRC's Customary Law Study ).
Thus,
in order to perceive the full scope of protection granted to
journalists under humanitarian law one simply has to substitute the word
" civilian " as it is used throughout the Geneva Conventions and their
Additional Protocols with the word " journalist. "
Do attacks against journalists in armed-conflict situations amount to war crimes?
Inasmuch
as they are civilians, journalists are protected under international
humanitarian law against direct attacks unless and for such time as they
take a direct part in hostilities. Violations of this rule constitute a
grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I. What
is more, intentionally directing an attack against a civilian – whether
in an international or in a non-international armed conflict – also
amounts to a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court.
Does the status of war correspondent confer special protection?
Journalists
and other media professionals run a high risk of being subjected to
arbitrary detention for alleged security reasons. This is where the
distinction between " war correspondents " (Article 4 A (4) of the Third
Geneva Convention) and " journalists " (Article 79 of Additional
Protocol I) matters. Both are recognized as civilians, but only war
correspondents are entitled to prisoner-of-war status. War
correspondents are formally authorized to accompany the armed forces. By
virtue of this close relationship, upon capture, they are accorded the
same legal status as members of the armed forces. War correspondents
thus benefit from the protections of the Third Geneva Convention as
supplemented by Additional Protocol I and customary international law.
Could you tell us what the difference is between war correspondents and "embedded journalists"?
"
Embedded journalists " is a modern term. It was apparently first used
during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and has since gained widespread
currency. It does not occur in any provision of international
humanitarian law and, so far as I know, it is not clearly defined.
However, it is safe to say that war correspondents are commonly,
although not necessarily in all cases, equated with so-called " embedded
journalists. " In order to become a war correspondent within the
meaning of international humanitarian law, official accreditation by the
armed forces is mandatory. Thus, if an " embedded journalist " has
received the official accreditation then, legally, he is a war
correspondent.
What about journalists and media professionals who do not qualify as "war correspondents"?
It's
not as if other media professionals who fall into the hands of a
warring party do not have any protection at all. On the contrary, the
legal protection they are entitled to is quite extensive. This point,
incidentally, is often overlooked. First of all, if they are not
nationals of the country holding them, then they benefit from all the
relevant protections granted by the Fourth Geneva Convention. In
addition, whatever the circumstances, journalists and other media
professionals always enjoy, as a minimum, the fundamental guarantees set
out in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I – a provision that
prohibits, in particular, violence to the life or health of persons in
the power of a party to an armed conflict, torture of all kinds,
outrages upon personal dignity and the taking of hostages. In addition,
it provides guarantees of a fair trial for people detained for penal
offences. Detained media professionals benefit from the same fundamental
guarantees regardless of whether their detention occurs in connection
with an international or a non-international armed conflict. As
civilians, journalists are protected in times of non-international armed
conflict by Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions, Additional
Protocol II and customary international law.
What concrete steps is the ICRC taking to help journalists on dangerous assignments?
Media
professionals who are directly attacked, or who disappear or are taken
captive in wartime or in other violence, are of great concern to the
ICRC. Since 1985 we have had a permanent hotline
(+41 79 217 32 85) available to journalists who find themselves in
trouble in armed conflicts. This is a purely humanitarian service. Not
only journalists, but also their employers and relatives can use the
hotline (or contact staff in one of our offices across the world or
write us at press@icrc.org) to
report a missing, wounded, or detained journalist and request
assistance. The services provided by the ICRC range from seeking
confirmation of a reported arrest, obtaining access to persons arrested,
providing information on a journalist's whereabouts for relatives and
employers, maintaining family links, actively tracing missing
journalists, to carrying out medical evacuations of wounded journalists.
The
ICRC also offers training in international humanitarian law, and
provides support for National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
offering first-aid courses for journalists.
Do existing laws provide journalists with enough protection? Is there anything that should be done to enhance their protection?
Existing
laws do provide enough protection. They constitute a solid and
realistic basis for shielding media professionals from harm as they work
in the battlefield. The most serious deficiency is not a lack of rules,
but a failure to implement existing rules and to systematically
investigate, prosecute and punish violations.
The ICRC
is trying to bring about greater compliance with existing rules.
Achieving this aim requires that proper training and instruction be
provided for those who have to implement the rules on the ground. It
also requires that those who violate the rules be held to account and,
if found guilty of crimes, punished. Individuals are criminally
responsible for any war crimes they commit, and each party to an armed
conflict must respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian
law
What activities is the ICRC carrying out to achieve this aim?
We
constantly endeavour to make the rules that protect journalists, and
civilians in general, more widely known and better respected. In
addition to the training sessions we provide on international
humanitarian law, we participate in a wide range of events and expert
consultations. Just to give you an example, during the 14th regular
session of the UN Human Rights Council, the ICRC participated in a panel
discussion on the protection of journalists in armed conflicts.
Of course, we cooperate with other organizations working in this field
and exchange views with them. Recently, for example, we met with the UN
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to
freedom of opinion and expre ssion, to discuss the protection of media
professionals during armed conflict.
Do you think enough is being done to ensure better protection for media personnel working in armed-conflict situations?
I'll
give you one example of the concrete steps we are taking in this
regard. At the last meeting of the International Conference of the Red
Cross and Red Crescent, which took place in Geneva in November 2007, we
invited the participants (the National Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies, their International Federation, the ICRC and the States party
to the Geneva Conventions) to voluntarily sign individual or joint
humanitarian pledges, by which they commit themselves to taking all such
steps as are necessary to ensure that media professionals working in
armed conflict enjoy the respect and protection granted to civilians
under international humanitarian law, and to promoting the rules and
principles of international humanitarian law that are applicable to
journalists.
However, as so often, much more needs to be done, in
terms of commitment and of implementation. So far, six governments and
nine National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies have signed such pledges.
No comments:
Post a Comment