This topic boils down to this dichotomy: freedom of speech versus the concept "more ink equals more blood". While some believe speech should not be limited by the government, others feel that media publishing governmental tactics and secrets should be considered treasonous. The debate is still alive today; just look at the WikiLeaks scandal. Moreover, it has also appeared in situations involving terrorist groups utilizing the media to express their views and fear. For example, Bin Laden used video and other forms of communication to promote his ideals to viewers and to maintain a powerful global image. Not only can the media express terrorism, but it can also allow terrorists to learn about government secrets that need to be kept secrets for national security purposes. Countries are free to find other examples of media reporting of terrorism, and the background guide will present more details on this topic.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a doctrine that came out as a result of the UN 2005 World Summit and it is a commitment that all states will step up to prevent a genocide like the one in Rwanda. It purports 3 basic points:
This has been mostly relevant with a few recent conflicts--for example, Libya which is a definite R2P issue. Some instances have even had the potential to be R2P issues--such as Egypt and Iran. The big debates involved in this topic sometimes boil down to whether the R2P violates a State's sovereignty. What issues (apart from genocide and ethnic cleansing) should be included in R2P? Should there be more than just a doctrine, or maybe a treaty among the member States of the UN?