![]() “What I have also not seen so far in the reporting of this review is any discussion of the larger context of the war and how this report played in favour of Russian propaganda. This wasn’t done, and it caused a lot of damage. “One of the things that was very important to me at the time was that we should be in communication with the Ukrainian government, formally or informally, to get information from them. “I want justice to be done and to be seen done,” she told the Guardian. Oksana Pokalchuk, the former head of Amnesty’s Ukraine office, who resigned over the report, said she believed the review should be made public as well as a promised internal review of relations inside the organisation on how decisions were made around the report. “These reservations should have led to greater reflection and pause” before the organisation issued its statement, the review added. The leaked report also disclosed that there had been significant unease within Amnesty before publication, not least over the issue of whether the government of Ukraine had been sufficiently engaged with. The expert review was conducted by five experts including Emanuela-Chiara Gillard of the University of Oxford Kevin Jon Heller of the University of Copenhagen Eric Talbot Jensen of Brigham Young University Marko Milanovic of the University of Reading and Marco Sassòli of the University of Geneva.Įxperts questioned whether the authors of the original report had correctly interpreted international law regarding Ukraine as a victim of aggression and whether there was evidence that Ukraine had put civilians in “harm’s way”. The paper added, however, that sources had told it that Amnesty’s board had sat on the 18-page review for months amid suggestions there had been pressure to water down its conclusions.Īt the centre of the controversy was Amnesty’s claim that by housing military personnel in civilian buildings and launching attacks from civilian areas, Ukraine had been in breach of international law on the protection of civilians. In the immediate aftermath of publication, the initial report was seized on by Russia, including the embassy in London, to claim that Ukrainian tactics were a “violation of international humanitarian law” at a time when Russian forces were being accused of serious war crimes. ![]() “This is particularly the case with the opening paragraphs, which could be read as implying – even though this was not AI’s intention – that, on a systemic or general level, Ukrainian forces were primarily or equally to blame for the death of civilians resulting from attacks by Russia.” CitationĢ019.In particular, the report’s authors were criticised for language that appeared to suggest “many or most of the civilian victims of the war died as a result of Ukraine’s decision to locate its forces in the vicinity of civilians” at a time when Russian forces were deliberately targeting civilians. Number of citizens receiving access to an uncensored internet. We calibrate a simple model to show that theĬombination of low demand for uncensored information and the moderate social transmission means China's censorship apparatus may remain robust to a large Intended behaviors and (iv) social transmission of information is statistically significant but small in magnitude. In acquisition, indicating that demand is not permanently low (iii) acquisition brings broad, substantial, and persistent changes to knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and We findįour main results: (i) free access alone does not induce subjects to acquire politically sensitive information (ii) temporary encouragement leads to a persistent increase We track subjects' media consumption, beliefs regarding the media, economic beliefs, political attitudes, and behaviors over 18 months. We conduct a field experiment in China to measure the effects of providing citizens with access to an Media censorship is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |