Mass News Media and International Law
| Date | 01 July 1986 |
| Published date | 01 July 1986 |
| DOI | 10.1177/019251218600700308 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
344
MASS
NEWS
MEDIA
AND
INTERNATIONAL
LAW
LEONARD
R.
SUSSMAN
DAVID
W.
SUSSMAN
The
Mass
Media
Declaration
approved
by
acclamation
by
161
countries
in
1978
is
the
only
official
statement
on
journalism
ever
passed
at
the
United
Nations
Educational,
Scientific
and
Cultural
Organization.
The
operative
sections
of
the
Declaration
invoke
access
for
journalists
to
news
sources,
and
freedom
to
report,
while
calling
for
a
"wider
and
better
balanced
dissemination
of
information."
The
title
and
content
of
the
Declaration
also
set
forth
"fundamental
principles"
intended
to
enlist
journalists
in
"strengthening
peace
and
international
understanding"
and
opposition
to
racism
and
incitement
to
war.
These
objectives
are
regarded
by
some
western
critics
as
threatening
content
control
of
the
mass
media.
Some
Soviet
and
Third
World
activists
claim
that
this
bland
document
has
the
force
of
international
law.
We
reject
this
objective
as
insupportable.
But we
point
out that
western
journalists
have
generally failed
to
distinguish
between Third
World pleas
for
greater communications facilities and the
presumed threat to
limit
the
freedom
of
the
news
media.
Western
journalists
thereby
inadvertently
lend
credence
to
the
criticism
of
their
performance,
and
lubricate
the
drive
to
give
the
Declaration
the
force
of
law.
One
justification
of
the
United
States
in
explaining
its
withdrawal
from
the
United
Nations
Educational,
Scientific
and
Cultural
Organization
on
January
1,
1985,
was
the
alleged
intention
of
UNESCO
to
impose
limitations
on
independent
journalism.
The
United
Kingdom
withdrew
one
year
later
making
a
similar
complaint.
The
withdrawals
mark
a
radical
turning
point
in
both
countries’
involvement
in
the
international
community,
particularly
in
the
field
of
communications.
The
debate
concerning
the
regulation
of
the
flow of
information
is
now
increasingly
raised
in
the
General
Assembly
of
the
United
Nations.
It
is
likely
to
continue
less
heatedly
in
the
UNESCO
forum
but
without
the
participation
of
the
United
States
and
the
United
Kingdom.
Some
of
these
developments
would
challenge
not
only
US
preeminence
in
several
345
fields
of
international
communication,
but
free-flow
concepts
as
well.
Ultimately,
we
may
see
efforts
to
elevate
initiatives
such
as
those
taken
at
the
United
Nations
and
UNESCO
to
the
status
of
international
law.
We
shall
examine
here
the
legal
status
of
the
most
celebrated
UNESCO
action
in
the
area
of
international
communication.
The
only
official
statement
on
the
mass
media
by
UNESCO,
except
for
its
repeated
condemnations
of
censorship,
was
the
Mass
Media
Declaration
of
1978
(the
&dquo;Declaration&dquo;).’
I
The
Declaration
was
approved
by
acclamation
by
the
United
States
and
all
other
delegations.
There
have
been
efforts,
both
before
and
after
the
Declaration
was
passed,
to
suggest
that
it
has
the
force
of
international
law.
A
leading
proponent
of
this
view
(Nordenstreng,
1984)
maintains
that
the
Declaration’s
preamble
&dquo;lists
many
other
international
instruments
and
thus
creates
linkages
between
the
Declaration
and
the
existing
framework
of
international
law
and
politics.&dquo;
He
underscores
the
importance
of
the
preambular
references
to
international
law
by
stating
that
&dquo;all
parts
of
a
declaration,
as
with
a
normal
resolution,
have
equal
weight.&dquo;
Furthermore,
a
1980
UNESCO
resolution
states
that
the
formulation
of
an
undefined
&dquo;new
world
information
and
com-
munication
order,&dquo;
of
which
the
Declaration
is
stated
to
be
an
early
beacon,
&dquo;should
be
based
on
the
fundamental
principles
of
inter-
national
law
as
laid
down
in
the
Charter
of
the
United
Nations&dquo;
(UNESCO
1981;
emphasis
added).
In
the
preamble
of
that
same
resolution
the
Mass
Media
Declaration
is
described
as
setting
forth
exceptionally
important
principles
and
thus
is
listed
alongside
the
UN
Charter
and
the
Universal
Declaration
of
Human
Rights.
Following
the
United
States
withdrawal
from
UNESCO,
there
may
also
be
attempts
to
suggest
that
prior
UNESCO
initiatives,
to
which
the
United
States
was
a
party,
have
the
binding
effect
of
law.
Only
then
could
it
be
said
with
accuracy
that
UNESCO-adopted
programs
seek
to
control
the
content
of
communications
in
the
international
arena.
It
is
our
position
that
any
attempt
to
convert
the
Mass
Media
Declaration
from
a
general
statement
of
purpose
to
a
binding
legal
rule
should
be
rejected.
It
is
our
purpose
to
demonstrate
the
soundness
of
this
position
not
only
in
law,
but
in
politics
and
journalism
as
well;
and,
further,
to
show
that
unbalanced
reporting
by
US
journalists
of much
of
the
communications
debates
at
UNESCO
has
confused
the
legal
with
the
political
issues,
thereby
inadvertently
supporting
those
who
would
give
legal
status
to
purely
political
documents.
To continue reading
Request your trial