This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Francisco August 2006.
I am not the author. If you have questions about this paper,
please contact the author directly.
If you have questions about the archives, email rakyat [ at ]
eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line, send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Oct 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
International Criminal Tribunals:
Does the Reporters Privilege Apply?
Elaine Hargrove-Simon
Ph.D. Candidate
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Minnesota Twin Cities
4218 Emerson Ave. N.
Minneapolis, MN
612-588-4954
[log in to unmask]
In 1993, Washington Post journalist Jonathan Randal interviewed
Radoslav Brdjanin, who was at the time a Bosnian Serb housing
manager, and relied on another journalist known only as "X" to aid
him in translation. On February 11, 1993, Randal's story,
"Preserving the Fruits of Ethnic Cleansing; Bosnian Serbs, Expulsion
Victims see Process as Beyond Reversal" was published in The
Washington Post. Randal wrote: "[Brdjanin] said he believes the
'exodus' of non-Serbs should be carried out peacefully, so as to
'create an ethnically clean space through voluntary
movement.' Muslim and Croats, [Brdjanin] said, 'should not be
killed, but should be allowed to leave and good riddance.'" The
article also quoted Brdjanin as saying that Serb authorities paid too
much attention to human rights and that "[w]e don't need to prove
anything to Europe anymore. We are going to defend our frontiers at
any cost . . . and wherever our army boots stand, that's the
situation. Randal's article further stated that Brdjanin said he was
advocating laws that would expel non-Serbs from public housing in
order to make room for Serbs.1
Radoslav Brdjanin, together with Momir Talic, is currently
standing trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for his participation in ethnic cleansing
during the 1992-1995 war of succession from Yugoslavia. He is
charged in a 12-count indictment that included crimes against
humanity and "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions of 1949
involving deportation, forced transfer, and appropriation of
property.2 Charges also include the persecution and expulsion of
more than 100,000 Serbs during the Bosnian war.3
The ICTY subpoenaed Randal in order to clarify the statements he had
attributed to Brdjanin in his 1993 story. Attorneys for the
prosecution argue that the journalist Randal relied on for
translation identified by the tribunal only as "X" misrepresented
Brdjanin's comments on purpose and that Brdjanin's comments were
actually more malevolent. On the other hand, Brdjanin's attorneys
hoped that Randal's comments will bring the discrepancies between
Brdjanin's actual words and those of the interpreter to light, or
that the comments will predate the period covered by the trial,
making them irrelevant to the case.
Randal, who by now had retired and was living in Paris, filed a
witness statement with the Office of the Prosecutor on August 17,
2001. He stated that he was willing to speak to investigators for
the tribunal, but hesitated to give evidence to the court. Randal
said that if he was compelled to testify before the court, he would
only affirm that the quotes he attributed to Brdjanin in his 1993
article were accurate and true. Nevertheless, Randal was compelled
to appear before the Trial Chamber in spring 2002. Randal filed an
appeal, and on August 17, an amicus brief, signed by 34 media
organizations, was handed over to the appeals chamber.
At the heart of the case is the question of reporters privilege
the right of a journalist to keep his sources and notes and papers
confidential so that the flow of information is not dammed, an
important commodity in a democracy where the right to know is a
critical component of free speech. Amici claim that the contribution
of a journalist to a free society and even the work of the tribunal
is on par with that of Red Cross and Red Crescent workers and
officers of the tribunal itself.
The Appeals Chamber consisting of Judges Claude Jorda (President),
Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Mehmet Guney, Asika de Z. Gunawardana, and
Theodor Meron, for the most part agreed with the media groups signing
on the amicus brief. (Judge Shahabuddeen wrote a concurring
opinion; discussion follows.) The Appeals Chamber considered the two
questions whether the Tribunal should recognize a qualified
testimonial privilege for war correspondents and whether such a
privilege would lead to a quashing of the Randal subpoena.
In arriving at their decision, the Appeals Chambers wrote that the
issue really involves not simply journalists, but a "smaller group"
war correspondents, defining them as "individuals who, for any period
of time, report (or investigate for the purposes of reporting) from a
conflict zone on issues relating that the conflict."4 They further
stated, "This decision concerns only this group."5
The basic legal issue raises three questions. Is there a public
interest in the work of war correspondents? If so, would compelling
war correspondents to testify before a tribunal adversely affect
their ability to carry out their work? If that is so, can there be a
test to balance the public interest in the work of war correspondents
with the public interest in presenting all necessary evidence to the
court in order to see that justice is done, including the right of
the defendant to challenge the evidence against him?
The Appeals Chamber wrote that the work of war correspondents is
clearly in the public interest, relying on many national legislatures
and court decisions which have recognized that "journalists" (the
Appeals Chamber did not use the word "war correspondents" here) play
an important "watchdog" role that is essential in
democracies. Compelling journalists to testify may hinder the
ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable
information.6 The Appeals Chamber also said that protecting the
integrity of war correspondents is "particularly clear and
weighty."7 War correspondents bring information about death,
destruction and suffering8 to the public which is "essential to
keeping the international community informed about matters of life
and death" and which "may also be vital to assisting those who would
prevent or punishing crimes under international law."9 The Appeals
Chamber also credited war correspondents with "important leads" for
ICTY investigations. For all these reasons, the Appeals Chamber
judges concluded that war correspondents do "serve a public
interest." "Adequate weight," they wrote, "must be given to
protecting the ability of war correspondents to carry out their functions."10
Regarding the question, "Would compelling war correspondents to
testify in a war crimes tribunal adversely affect their ability to
carry out their work," the Appeals Chamber took into consideration
the arguments of the amici, who stated that journalists must be
perceived as "independent observers" rather than "potential
witnesses." "What really matters," the Appeals Chamber wrote, "is
the perception that war correspondents can be forced to become
witnesses against their interviewees. . . .To publish the information
obtained from an interviewee is one thing it is often the very
purpose for which the interviewee gave the interview but to testify
against the interviewed person on the basis of that interview is
quite another."11
When war correspondent are perceived as a potential witnesses, it
could result in their having more difficulties in obtaining
information because interviewees would distrust them, and would
either give them no interview at all or little or inaccurate
information, or deny them access to areas of conflict. Additionally,
those committing human rights violations could see war correspondents
as potential targets, thereby putting their lives in
danger. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber wrote, "[C]ompelling war
correspondents to testify before the International Tribunal on a
routine basis may have a significant impact on their ability to
obtain information and thus their ability to inform the public on
issues of general concern."12
The Appeals Chamber considered two questions before arriving at a
test that would balance the seemingly conflicting public interests of
accommodating the work of war correspondents with that of obtaining
all relevant evidence available to the court. First, the petitioning
party must "demonstrate that the evidence sought is of direct and
important value in determining a core issue in the case." Secondly,
the petitioning party must also demonstrate that the evidence sought
of a war correspondent is not reasonably available elsewhere.13
The Appeals Chamber laid its legal foundation for the public's right
to know by citing Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (September 3, 1953), Article 19
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (March
23, 1976), article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights
(July 18, 1978), and Article 9(1) of the African Charter on Human and
People's Rights (June 26, 1981) as well as Fresso and Roire v. France
(Judgment of 21 January 1999, ECHR), Erdogdu and Ince v. Turkey
(Judgment of 8 July 1999, ECHR), and Sener v. Turkey (Judgment of 18
July, 2000, ECHR). As to a qualified privilege for journalists, the
Appeals Chamber sited the United States case, Schoen v. Schoen (5
F.3d 1289, 9th Cir. 1993) and various European and U.S. laws that
protect journalists from testifying when the information is not
confidential in nature. Although some may argue that there is little
precedent for the decision of the Appeals Chamber, it would seem that
human rights laws and decisions in national courts as well as
international human rights courts have laid logical groundwork for
their decision.
It would seem that Randal and the 34 media organizations who signed
the amicus brief got what they wanted. Randal would not be compelled
to testify before the tribunal, and journalists now had a qualified
privilege that would keep them from having to place themselves in
danger any more than they already did, and the flow of information
would not be curtailed. There has been conjecture that since this
opinion was issued by an international criminal tribunal, it is very
likely that the same sort of privilege will be adopted by the
International Criminal Court.
But is there something missing?
One of the most disturbing things about the Appeals Court's opinion
is that it focuses solely on "war correspondents" working in a
"conflict zone." Neither term is fully defined, and that is problematic.
The term "conflict zone" implies not only a place: zone a
geographic, physical location, but also "conflict" which implies a
certain time when things in that area were in upheaval. But what
kind of an upheaval? And beginning when? Ending when? What about
the journalist who interviews someone before the conflict begins, but
while it is simmering? And is it just those conflicts resulting in
war crimes as described in the Rome Treaty under Article
8? Paragraph 2, Section (b)(i)- (iii) describes "armed conflict" as
intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population,
civilian objects (as opposed to military objects), and "intentionally
launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause
incidental loss of life or injury to civilian[s]. . ."14 In that
case, the streets of New York became a conflict zone at the moment
the first plane hit the World Trade Center on September 11. Later,
President Bush declared a war on terrorism, with no definite end in
sight. At what point is New York no longer a conflict zone?
Intuitively, a conflict zone would entail a degree of danger for the
journalist. But there is danger in other situations besides during
wartime, particularly when the journalist is working on a story
involving crime or corruption. Websites for such organizations as
the Committee to Protect Journalists15 and Reporters sans Frontieres
(Reporters without Borders)16 list journalists' names and countries
along with where and how journalists are killed in the line of
duty. Although it may be questionable whether these incidents may
fall under the jurisdiction of the newly-established International
Criminal Court, it is debatable that the circumstances surrounding
the killing of the journalists listed by these and other
organizations are not similar to those of "conflict zones." One
possible definition of a conflict zone might be found in a sentence
from an article by Scott Anderson about Daniel Pearl and other
journalists like him. Anderson wrote: "The powers that be in a
conflict zone no longer regard the media as a neutral observer but
rather as a strategic component something to be manipulated or
co-opted or simply got rid of."17
The case of Daniel Pearl, Anderson wrote, marks a point where, for
journalists, covering a war has "changed fundamentally." Anderson
claims that in the 1980s, journalists were seen as observers, and
normally both sides in a conflict let them come and go as they
pleased, so long as their vehicles were clearly marked "press." He
sites early 1990s and the fall of the Soviet Union as the turning
point, saying that several "simmering bush wars" heated up and became
increasingly sadistic. Neither side in these wars wanted such harsh
treatment reported. In the Bosnian war, journalists who marked their
cars with "press" found themselves fired upon by Bosnian Serb
snipers; in the Rwanda war, it was the Hutu militia who targeted
journalists, killing 14 of them in the first three weeks, so that
little news of the massacre would reach the rest of the world. More
recently, wars in Algeria have claimed the lives of 60 journalists;
in Chechnya, 15. According to Anderson, most of the journalists in
Chechnya have been killed by Russian soldiers so that Putin's
government can frame the war as it pleases.
But Anderson says that in the past ten years, the most noticeable
shift is in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Whereas ten years ago, a
Palestinian militant might have assumed a journalist could be a CIA
operative or was connected with the Zionist press, now the militant
is sure of the affiliation. CNN reaches even those countries, and
the banners that accompany the broadcasts, carrying such slogans as
"America strikes back" leave little room for doubt that Western
journalists have a not-so-hidden agenda.18
As recently as January 22, 2003, Scott Dalton, an American
photographer, and Ruth Morris, a British reporter, were kidnapped by
members of the National Liberation Army in Tame, Columbia. Tame is
near a stronghold of the National Liberation Army, a leftist rebel
group. U.S. Special Forces are in the area training Columbian forces
to protect an oil pipeline in the region.19
The result of this incident and others like it has been
two-sided. On one hand, some papers, including the Wall Street
Journal that employed the murdered Daniel Pearl, have decided not to
send their own staff into conflict zones to cover the war.20
On the other hand, some journalists are training in order to
handle conflict zone situations. In 1998, Reporters without Borders
issued a "Practical Guide for Journalists."21 Chapter three contains
information regarding safety, including how to deal with snipers, how
to deal with an ambush, hand to hand combat, and what to do if taken
hostage. Chapter four (in which a distinction is made between areas
of "exceptionally high risk," such as combat zones, and areas of
"abnormally high risk," such as civil disorder) covers how to protect
journalists and with guidelines taken from the British Broadcasting
Company; while chapter five covers first aid procedures.22 With the
prospect of a war in Iraq facing them, some journalists are attending
training camps at Quantico, Virginia and even military bases as Fort
Dix and Fort Benning, where they learn to deal with battle
situations, generally with specialists who have worked for the
government.23 But this training has the potential of further
identifying journalists with governmental authorities, which may
actually jeopardize their efforts in obtaining interviews with
representatives of the other side, or, worse, may further endanger
their safety. Even so, following the death of Daniel Pearl, CNN
required those employees willing to work in "hostile regions" (an
interesting term as opposed to conflict zones) to attend a survival
class. Before Pearl's death, the class was optional.24
Additionally, the term "war correspondent" is
problematic. The Appeals Chamber offered no clarifying
definition. None of the sources (specifically the cases and the
amicus brief) cited by the Appeals Chamber use the word "war
correspondent." It could be argued that a "correspondent" is someone
with ties to the one with whom he or she is corresponding; in the
case of a war correspondent, some sort of media organization - a
newspaper or a network on a regular basis. This implies employment
or at least affiliation. Are there other definitions?
Sources used by the Appeals Chamber refer to journalists or
reporters; the terms are no more specific. But defining just who is
a journalist is problematic. Laurence B. Alexander examined various
definitions of "journalist" and "journalistic activities including
one that described a journalist as someone "connected in some
substantial way" with the news media in order to weed out
"imposters."25 But this eliminates freelancers or those who are
working on a book or involved in academic activities, although case
law such as Schoen v. Schoen, 5 F. 3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), where
Ronald Watkins, who was an "investigative author of books on topical
and controversial subjects" was subpoenaed to turn over all research
materials relating to the death of Eva Berg Schoen. Although in no
way affiliated with any media, Watkins was allowed a reporter's
privilege. Judge William A. Norris wrote, "What makes journalism
journalism is not its format but its content." If that dictum were
true, taken together with the Appeals Chamber recognition of the
right to know that, then there should be no distinction made between
a journalist and a war correspondent.
What is problematic, however, in defining what constitutes
journalism and defining who is a journalist is, who is creating the
definition? If it is a governmental body, then journalism runs the
risk of being governmentally regulated. Either someone is a
journalist or is not, but according to whom? If such distinctions
are laid out by the government, then a journalist runs the risk of
being perceived as being "governmentally sanctioned." To some, the
distinction between governmentally sanctioned and governmentally
employed is very slight. Additionally, there are concerns that if it
is the government which is creating the definition, then the
government has its foot in the door to create limits on the press as well.
Where do journalists themselves stand on this issue as it was
presented to the Appeals Chamber? The lines fall somewhat
differently. Freedom of speech or safety isn't as much of an issue
as is justice and what some journalists call morality. Several
journalists have testified before the ICTY; most of them have been
from the Balkans.26 However, others have been with the BBC and other
British media organizations. (The BBC, even though it was one of the
organizations joining in with the amicus brief, allows its
journalists to decide for themselves if they want to testify when subpoenaed.)
One of them, Jacky Rowland, had been a BBC correspondent
during the 1998-99 Kosovo conflict. While there, she had viewed the
bodies of 25 people in Dubrava prison in Istok, Kosovo. Milosevic
claimed that the prison had been hit by NATO bombs, resulting in the
deaths. Rowland testified that the bodies did not appear as though
they had endured a bombing, and stated that it was unclear how the
people had died.27 Of her decision to testify, Rowland has said, "We
are human beings and ordinary people, we're not a priesthood. I
think perhaps our own readers and viewers might get suspicious if we
started claiming special privileges and exemptions."28
Another journalist who testified before the ICTY in 1997 was
Ed Vulliamy of the Observer. He testified for the case of Milan
Kovacevic, who had admitted to committing genocide in a drunken
confession to Vulliamy a year earlier.
Vulliamy described his experiences on the witness stand in an
article he wrote for that paper entitled, "An Obligation to the
Truth: Journalists Should Be Prepared to Risk Their Safety and
Testify at the International Criminal Court." He wrote that although
his experience as a correspondent was at times lonely and
frightening, lonelier still and even more intimidating was the
experience of testifying while being cross examined by lawyers who
wanted to, as the New York Times put it, "roast Mr. Vulliamy on a
spit so that no one ever again believes a word he writes."29 Defense
lawyers "crawled" through Vulliamy's notebooks, demanding that
Vulliamy decipher his notes to himself and accusing him of
fabricating the "nature" of the concentration camps he had borne
witness to. A few days later, Kovacevic died of a heart attack, and
a Serbian magazine accused Vulliamy of his murder.
Despite his experiences before the ICTY, Vulliamy wrote,
asking why should "journalists . . . whose information should be of
such value perch loftily above the due process of law?"30 He continued,
"At the root of the Post's objection [with regard to the
Randal subpoena] is the supposed bedrock of the journalists'
profession: neutrality. That the media should be neutral in the
sense of being 'above' taking sides let alone in a court of law
and neutral on the ground, like the Red Cross. I believe there are
times in history that neutrality is not neutral but complicit in the
crime. . . . I worked for many years on the Italian Mafia, which has
an adage: write more or less what you want, they don't care. The one
thing you never do is go to court; that way you cross a line. What a
shame it would be if, as we embark on the bold . . . enterprise of
the International Criminal Court, the profession of journalism, with
so much to offer the court's efficacy, adopted the guidelines of the
Cosa Nostra."31
But what Vulliamy apparently does not take into account (and to give
him the benefit of the doubt, his article was written before the
Appeals Chamber handed down its decision in Randal's case) is that
there is a difference when the journalist is the only holder of the
information needed by the court. The judges wrote that it must be
demonstrated that the evidence sought "cannot reasonably be obtained
elsewhere."32 But there is often a strong likelihood that whatever a
journalist discovers is not known to him or her alone; others also
most likely know. As Jacky Rowland herself said, ""Everything I told
the prosecutor and everything I told the court was already in the
public domain."33
Further criticism of journalists who prefer not to testify came from
an editorial in the New York Times by Peter Maass. Like Vulliamy,
Maass was subpoenaed to testify at Kovacevic's trial. But Kovacevic
died before Maass could take the stand.34
Maass wrote that any danger to a journalist that resulted from
testifying could be remedied by simply not returning to that place
where there may be a price on his or her head.35 But that notion
seems naοve. Journalists should not be forced to limit the places
they travel; it would be a barrier to their carrier. Besides, anyone
sufficiently determined to harm a journalist would not necessarily
feel limited to stay in one place, but could seek and find the
journalist no matter where he or she goes.
Bill Berkeley, who now writes editorials for the New York
Times and teaches international affairs at Columbia had initially
agreed to testify before the Rwanda tribunal, but was never called to
take the witness stand. After joining the staff of the New York
Times, Berkeley reconsidered his position. His students at Columbia
don't understand. "Isn't your obligation as a human being separate
from your obligation as a journalist?" they have asked him. He
replied, "My journalism is an expression of my humanity, and the most
important thing is to maintain the integrity of my work."36
Conjecture among those who watch the media and legal
communities is that some version of the Appeals Chamber ruling will
be adopted by the International Criminal Court. In his concurring
opinion, Judge Shahabuddeen touched on the question of a legal
precedent of a journalist's privilege.37 Although he dedicated
little space to that question, it may be useful to note that laws
exist allowing journalists varying degrees of privilege. Laurence
Alexander lists those found in the various states of the U.S.38 while
Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, a 1996 case before the European Court
of Human Rights, states that "Protection of journalistic sources is
one of the basic conditions of for press freedom, as is reflected in
the laws and the professional codes of conduct in a number of
Contracting States and is affirmed in several international
instruments on journalistic freedoms," listing the Resolution on
Journalistic Freedoms and Human Rights and the Resolution on the
Confidentiality of Journalists' Sources by the European Parliament.39
ICTY employees and functionaries must be given absolute
immunity from testifying in order to protect the impartiality of the
tribunal.40 The qualified immunity the Appeals Chamber has given to
war correspondents may not be enough. As Roy W. Gutman (a 1993
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who reported from Bosnia for
Newsday and who refused to testify when asked) has said, "To my mind,
we're a co-equal branch with the tribunal."41
Post script
Oddly enough, it has never been quite clear why Randal was
subpoenaed to testify before the tribunal when he relied on a
translator, "X." "X" was not subpoenaed, and nowhere does there seem
to be a written explanation as to why he was not. "The court has
declined to name the other journalist," reported The New York
Times.42 The Washington Post printed, "Brdjanin's defense team
contends that Randal must be cross-examined because "X" was hostile
to Brdjanin and therefore the Post article [Randal wrote] did not
correspond with what [Brdjanin] said during the interview."43 Judge
Shahabuddeen touched on this briefly in his concurring
opinion. "Unlike Mr. Randal, Mr. "X" understood the language of the
conversation; it was he who did the necessary
interpretation. Consequently, in Mr. "X" there was a reasonable
alternative source for the evidence."44 But now, in the light of the
Appeals Chamber's decision, Mr. "X," himself a war correspondent,
cannot be subpoenaed. But if he had been subpoenaed before this
decision, and if Mr. "X" is not an American, this case likely would
not have come to court. Judging from past events, it was only
American journalists who refused to testify. And once American
journalists are on American soil, they don't have to answer the
summons to appear. But Jonathan Randal was living in Paris when he
was subpoenaed, and therefore the question of a journalist's
privilege became a matter the tribunal was forced to address. It
remains to be seen whether the International Criminal Court will
adopt a similar qualified privilege, adapted to include any
journalists, not just those working in conflict zones.
Bibliography
Alexander, Laurence B., "Shield Laws on Trial: State Court
Interpretation of the Journalist's Statutory Privilege," in Journal
of Legislation, 1997.
Alexander, Laurence B., "Looking Out for the Watchdogs: A
Legislative Proposal Limiting the Newsgathering Privilege to
Journalists and the Greatest Need of Protection for Sources and
Information," Yale Law and Policy Review, 2002.
Allicon, Rebecca, writing for The Guardian. Article available online
at http://media.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4590537,00.html.
Anderson, Scott, "The Lives They Lived," New York Times, December
29, 2002. Section 6, Page 50, Column 1
Bernstein, Nina, "Should War Reporters Testify, Too? A Recent Court
Decision Helps Clarify the Issue But Does not End the Debate," in the
New York Times, December 14, 2002. pg. 9.
Committee for the Protection of Journalists, "2001 Journalists
Killed" available at www.cpj.org/killed/Ten_Year_Killed/2001_list.html
Committee for the Protection of Journalists, "2002 Journalists
Killed" available at www.cpj.org/killed/Ten_Year_Killed/stats.html
Decision on Interlocutory Appeal, in Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin
Momir Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-AR73.9, Decided December 11, 2002.
Goodwin v. United Kingdom, 16/1994/463/544 at number 39
Jurkowitz, Mark, writing for the Boston Globe, September 4, 2002.
Maass, Peter, "Journalists and Justice at The Hague," The New York
Times, July 5, 2002, pg. 19.
Moore, Kirk, "A Crash Course in Surviving War," printed in the Asbury
Park Press, January 24, 2003. Available online at
www.app.com/app2001/story/0,21133,675457,00.html.
Reporters sans Frontieres, "Practical Guide for Journalists,"
available online at http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=2350
Reporters sans Frontieres, List of Journalists Killed, available online at
http://www.rsf.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=113
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Simons, Marlise and Felicity Barringer, "Paper Fights Off Subpoena of
Journalist by UN Court," New York Times, May 11, 2002.
Sterling, Toby, Associated Press, August 30, 2002.
Washington Post, "UN Court Orders Reporter to Testify," pg. A22, June 11, 2002
Washington Post, December 12, 2002.
Wells, Matt, writing for The Guardian, August 20, 2001.
Vejnoska, Jill, "Reporting Under Fire In a Hostile World, CNN
Requires Lessons in Survival for Staffers." Available online at
www.accessatlanta.com.ajc/living/1002/23cnn.html
Vulliamy, Ed, "An Obligation to the Truth: Journalists Should Be
Prepared to Risk Their Safety and Testify at the International
Criminal Court," The Observer, pg. 30, May 19, 2002.
1 Decision on Interlocutory Appeal, in Prosecutor v. Radoslav
Brdjanin Momir Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-AR73.9, Decided December 11, 2002.
2 Ibid.
3 Toby Sterling, Associated Press, August 30, 2002.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Decision on Interlocutory Appeal, Case number IT-99-36-AR73.9, pg. 6
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Section 8,
Paragraph 2, Section (b)(i) (iii).
15 See, for example www.cpj.org/killed/Ten_Year_Killed/2001_list.html
and www.cpj.org/killed/Ten_Year_Killed/stats.html
16 See http://www.rsf.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=113
17 Scott Anderson, "The Lives They Lived," New York Times, December
29, 2002. Section 6, Page 50, Column 1.
18 Ibid.
19 Rebecca Allicon, writing for The Guardian. Article available
online at
http://media.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4590537,00.html. Site
accessed 1/24/03.
20 Anderson, ibid.
21 Reporters sans Frontieres, Practical Guide for Journalists,
available online at http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=2350
22 Ibid.
23 Kirk Moore, "A Crash Course in Surviving War," printed in the
Asbury Park Press, January 24, 2003. Available online at
www.app.com/app2001/story/0,21133,675457,00.html. Accessed January 24, 2003.
24 Jill Vejnoska, "Reporting Under Fire In a Hostile World, CNN
Requires Lessons in Survival for Staffers." Available online at
www.accessatlanta.com.ajc/living/1002/23cnn.html
25Laurence B. Alexander, "Looking Out for the Watchdogs: A
Legislative Proposal Limiting the Newsgathering Privilege to
Journalists and the Greatest Need of Protection for Sources and
Information," Yale Law and Policy Review, 2002, pg. 131-136.
26 Toby Sterling, August 30, 2002, story filed with the Associated Press.
27 Matt Wells, story appearing in The Guardian, August 20, 2001.
28 Washington Post, December 12, 2002.
29 Ed Vulliamy, "An Obligation to the Truth: Journalists Should Be
Prepared to Risk Their Safety and Testify at the International
Criminal Court," The Observer, pg. 30, May 19, 2002.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Decision on Interlocutory Appeal, 11 December 2002, Ibid.
33 Mark Jurkowitz in the Boston Globe, September 4, 2002.
34 Peter Maass, "Journalists and Justice at The Hague," The New York
Times, July 5, 2002, pg. 19.
35 Ibid.
36 Nina Bernstein, "Should War Reporters Testify, Too? A Recent
Court Decision Helps Clarify the Issue But Does not End the Debate,"
in the New York Times, December 14, 2002. pg. 9.
37 See "Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen," part of "Decision
on Interlocutory Appeal," Case No. IT-99-36-AR73.9.
38 Laurence B. Alexander, "Shield Laws on Trial: State Court
Interpretation of the Journalist's Statutory Privilege," in Journal
of Legislation, 1997.
39 Goodwin v. United Kingdom, 16/1994/463/544 at number 39.
40 "Decision on Interlocutory Appeal," Ibid.
41 Bernstein, Ibid.
42 Marlise Simons and Felicity Barringer, "Paper Fights Off Subpoena
of Journalist by UN Court," New York Times, May 11, 2002.
43 Washington Post, "UN Court Orders Reporter to Testify," pg. A22,
June 11, 2002.
44 "Decision on Interlocutory Appeal," Ibid.
|
