The Eagle staff endeavour to practice ethical journalism and promote integrity in their work The Senior Editorial Board reserves the right to publish only those articles that they regard as accurate and not injurious We cannot guarantee that every article submitted to our publication will be published All opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the staff, students, or administration of Trinity College Dublin.
Photography, design, and layout Aoife Doheny
establishment of a centralised National Surrogacy Register, addressing historical gaps in Irish law and ensuring long-term access to identity-related data Another notable strength is the gradual disclosure model, which allows for staged access to information starting with non-identifying details before progressing to identifying data. This approach balances transparency with privacy, particularly for donors and surrogates. Furthermore, integration with birth registration ensures that AHR-born individuals are notified of their right to access information, a significant improvement over previous legal ambiguities
Limitations and Ethical Challenges
Despite these strengths, the Act has several limitations and ethical challenges One key issue is the potential delays in identity formation due to the Act’s formal application process and objection mechanisms Research suggests that children benefit from early disclosure of their genetic background to support psychological development as suggested by Wade (2020) Another challenge lies in balancing privacy versus identity rights The 12-week objection period (Section 73) may create legal disputes where privacy concerns override a child’s right to identity Privacy concerns raise the question around whether a child's right to know their origins should always outweigh privacy protections for donors and surrogates.
Moreover, challenges in cross-border surrogacy persist The Act does not fully resolve issues surrounding international surrogacy arrangements, which may complicate identity access for children born abroad. ECtHR case law suggests that states must recognise cross-border surrogacy relationships when failure to do so violates Article 8 of the ECHR (as ruled in Mennesson v France) Finally, enforcement and compliance issues pose a significant hurdle Ensuring that all donors and surrogates comply with recordkeeping obligations may require stronger regulatory oversight by the Assisted Human Reproduction Regulatory Authority (AHRRA).
Conclusion and Recommendations
The Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act 2024 is a significant step in safeguarding the identity rights of children born through AHR By introducing a National Surrogacy Register, formalising identity access pathways, and integrating birth registration systems, the Act ensures greater transparency. However, challenges remain, particularly in balancing privacy rights with a child's right to know their origins
To address these challenges, this article proposes several recommendations for future reforms First, reducing delays in identity disclosure is crucial. Implementing age-appropriate identity access models could allow for gradual disclosure before adulthood, supporting early identity formation Second, strengthening cross-border recognition by aligning Ireland’s policies with ECtHR rulings on cross-border surrogacy would ensure that legal parentage is recognised when non-recognition harms a child's identity rights. Additionally, enhancing oversight and compliance through stricter enforcement mechanisms by the AHRRA would help ensure accurate and complete records for all surrogacy and donor arrangements Lastly, reconsidering the 12-week objection mechanism would balance privacy and identity rights more effectively by prioritising the child’s best interests, ensuring that privacy protections do not unduly restrict access to origins.
In conclusion, while the AHR Act 2024 is a progressive development, further refinements are necessary to fully uphold the rights of children born through assisted reproduction and surrogacy Future legislative adjustments should focus on minimising legal barriers, promoting early identity disclosure, and ensuring compliance with international human rights obligations.
Introduction
Misdeeds Behind the Screen: Ireland’s Legal Battle Against Cyberbullying
Kim Lianne Pineda Winner of The Eagle x Outreach Essay Competition
As digital spaces become an integral part of contemporary society, Ireland has seen a significant rise in cyberbullying incidents, especially among its youth
A survey conducted by the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ISPCC) found that over 50 per cent of Irish teenagers reported experiencing cyberbullying in recent years. With the increasing use of social media platforms, online harassment of individuals, particularly minors, has emerged as a serious and common social issue that is causing legal, ethical, and societal challenges across the country. This development has made it challenging for laws to effectively regulate and punish offenders, creating an urgent need for comprehensive legal measures that protect individuals from harmful online activities
How will Ireland protect individuals from online harm while respecting freedom of expression? To address this issue, Ireland introduced ‘Coco’s Law’ (Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020), which criminalizes the non-consensual distribution of intimate images and tackles online harassment Although these measures do represent a significant step forward, enforcing such laws and balancing them with the right to freedom of speech remains a controversial issue today.
The Rise of Cyberbullying in Ireland
Cyberbullying refers to the use of online platforms, such as social media or messaging apps, to harass, threaten, or manipulate individuals. In the past decade, cyberbullying has grown exponentially due to the frequent use of these digital platforms. The anonymity that the internet provides allows perpetrators to target their victims without facing immediate consequences, which has mainly led to a surge in online abuse
In Ireland, the impact of cyberbullying has been truly concerning, with incidents specifically involving young people. As previously mentioned, 50 per cent of teenagers reported being victims of online harassment in 2021, often through social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram according to the ISPCC The nature of cyberbullying has also become more harmful, with examples ranging from trolling and doxxing (publishing personal information without consent) to the sharing of intimate and sensitive images without consent These forms of abuse can have devastating effects on the mental health and well-being of victims Moreover, the global nature of the internet complicates national legal systems in addressing cyberbullying While Irish law is applicable within its jurisdiction, the cross-border aspect means perpetrators may be located in different countries, making enforcement quite difficult
The rise in incidents clearly shows that Ireland needs stronger and more effective legal frameworks to battle against online harassment
Existing Laws and Protections
‘Coco’s Law’, officially known as the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020, aims to tackle cyberbullying and online harassment in Ireland. It criminalizes sharing sensitive photos without consent, addressing both intentional and unintentional harm Those who share or threaten to share such images to cause harm can face up to seven years in prison. If intent is not proven, penalties include fines of up to €5,000 and possible prison time.
A key aspect of Coco’s Law is its protection for vulnerable individuals, especially minors, targeting the prevention of the exploitation of personal images and the spread of malicious content This law is crucial in acknowledging the psychological damage caused by cyberbullying, including public shaming. Additionally, Ireland follows the EU Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires social media companies to quickly remove harmful content However, enforcement remains challenging due to many platforms operating outside Ireland, complicating accountability Even when harmful content is flagged, delays in removal can leave victims exposed for longer periods.
Legal and Ethical Challenges
Ireland faces challenges with the global nature of online platforms, making enforcing laws like Coco’s Law difficult Social media companies often delay action on harmful content, and many cyberbullies use anonymous accounts to evade identification, complicating prosecution. Additionally, there is also a debate about balancing free speech and safety Critics worry that Coco’s Law could infringe on freedom of expression, as platforms may hesitate to remove borderline content perceived as harassment Social media companies often do not take enough responsibility. While the Digital Services Act regulates them, many believe they should face stricter penalties for inaction Some experts even advocate for a dedicated regulatory body in Ireland to enforce these measures more effectively This body could help ensure that online platforms are held accountable for harmful content, ultimately fostering a safer online environment for users while still safeguarding free speech.
Future Legal Reforms and Solutions
Despite the progress made with laws like Coco’s Law, further reforms are necessary to create a safer online environment One potential solution is the establishment of dedicated cybercrime units within the Irish police force.
These units could focus on tracking and prosecuting cyberbullying cases, particularly those involving international perpetrators Increased collaboration with international law enforcement agencies would also help address the issue of cross-border online harassment
Additionally, Ireland could benefit from education and awareness campaigns aimed at young people, schools, and the general public. Teaching individuals about the legal consequences of cyberbullying and the importance of respecting one another’s online privacy could significantly reduce these incidents Schools should implement programs that promote digital literacy and empathy, helping students understand the real-world impact of their online behavior.
Finally, holding social media companies more accountable must be a priority While the Digital Services Act is a step in the right direction, implementing much stricter penalties for platforms that fail to remove harmful content accordingly would serve as a stronger warning to encourage them to take action.
Irish lawmakers should continue to advocate for stronger enforcement of these regulations, ensuring that companies prioritize user safety over profits
Conclusions
Cyberbullying remains a pervasive issue in Ireland, with its detrimental effects on mental health and wellbeing becoming increasingly evident. Though Coco's Law has progressed in addressing harmful online behavior, more action is needed As technology evolves, it’s clear that more needs to be done to make the Internet a safer space for everyone, especially young people Moving forward, we need stronger enforcement, education, and collaboration between lawmakers, tech companies, and society to create a safer online environment. Ireland must take greater responsibility in combating cyberbullying and safeguarding its citizens, ensuring that everyone can navigate the internet without fear
in these institutions compounded the violations of their rights.
Furthermore, Article 19 of the UNCRC requires that children be protected from all forms of abuse, exploitation, and neglect The conditions in the homes, marked by inadequate care, poor living conditions, and emotional abuse, are direct violations of this article. When the matron of Tipperary North County Home in 1958 described the care of “invalid” children as “timeabsorbing,” it revealed the institutionalised dehumanisation of these children, who were seen as burdens rather than beings deserving of protection and compassion.
Seemingly unreported by the DCEDIY, thousands of babies were also illegally adopted In addition to the aforementioned adoptions breaching Article 9 of the UNCRC on the right to family life, these adoptions, through the denial of personal records, further breach Article 8; the requirement to respect the child's right to preserve their identity and their ability to understand and connect with their personal heritage and origins.
There are multiple reported instances of falsified birth records and facilitation of illegal adoptions. The violation of human rights will continue as long as those who were illegally adopted are unable to access their records
Conclusion
The mother and baby homes in Ireland represent a dark chapter in the country’s history, where the intertwining of state and Church power led to the systematic neglect and violation of children's rights The profound influence of the Catholic Church over these institutions enabled a culture of coercion, secrecy, and dehumanisation, while the Irish state failed in its duty to protect the vulnerable mothers and children under its care. The abuses that occurred stand in direct contravention of international human rights frameworks, such as the UNCRC and the ECHR, that guarantee children’s rights to family life, identity, and protection from abuse The failure to address these violations at the time and the ongoing consequences faced by survivors underscore the urgent need for meaningful redress and accountability.
digital world, new dimensions of their rights are gaining recognition and necessitating legal consideration. Ireland has made a lot of progress in protecting children's rights by moving from a system where adults made all the decisions to one that sees children as people with their own rights From changing the Constitution to creating laws for online safety, keeping children safe is becoming more and more important in our society and in our laws.
To this end, the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022 is a big step forward It sets up a regulatory framework for online platforms and makes companies responsible for harmful things that appear on their sites, for example, setting obligations for the implementation of codes of practice, the establishment of a Digital Safety Commissioner and the requirement for platforms to take measures to prevent the dissemination of harmful content The Oireachtas has introduced the Protection of Children (Online Age Verification) Bill 2024, which seeks to ensure that websites ask for proof of age before letting people see pornographic content. This has sought to be implemented ‘in the interest of child protection ’
However, the efficacy of these measures must be subjected to scrutiny in light of the ever-evolving modern societal trends. The unfettered accessibility of pornography online presents a significant challenge. It is asserted that this exposure can contribute to the normalisation and desensitisation towards sexual violence Similarly, the disturbing phenomenon of ‘paedophile hunters’ gaining online presence, while often fueled by outrage and the desire to protect children, introduces ethical dilemmas concerning due process, and the potential for misidentification.
In response to these evolving threats, the Irish Government is also working on making the internet safer for children through plans like the Action Plan for Online Safety, spanning from 2023 to 2027, that aim to place actions and policies on potential online harms Further, the National Advisory Council seeks to advise Coimisiún na Meán in ensuring online safety. Irish organisations like CyberSafeKids, Webwise, and the Irish Safer Internet Centre are providing information and carrying out important work by teaching children and speaking up for their rights online They help children learn how to stay safe and stand up for themselves online
Conclusion
In conclusion, Ireland has taken significant steps to ensure children’s rights in Ireland are protected Balancing children’s rights to privacy, participation, and access to information with the imperative to protect them from harm, both offline and online, especially in the digital age where online sexual exploitation and abuse may result in types of harm which the courts may not be accustomed to tackling. This inadvertently presents a complex legal and ethical challenge because while the internet empowers children with new opportunities for expression, they are also exposed to unprecedented risks such as grooming, and the spread of CSAM. However, such evolving risks demand legal innovation, public awareness, and ever-developing policymaking. Protection lies not only in criminalising harm but in ensuring that all rights-holders, including children, exercise their rights safely Laws like the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022 and pending age verification legislation strive to protect children but should carefully navigate the fine line between necessary surveillance and the preservation of digital rights and autonomy.
Children’s Rights in Ireland:
Juvenile Justice and the Path to Rehabilitation
Nóra Collins, Law and History, Senior Freshman
Shortlisted for The Eagle x FLAC ‘Children’s Rights’ Competition
A state’s treatment of children, especially those who commit criminal offences, reveals much about its commitment to human rights. In Ireland, the longstanding policy of protecting the anonymity of juvenile offenders and allowing their criminal records to be expunged is often misunderstood and occasionally criticised However, these practices are rooted in Ireland’s legal and ethical obligations to uphold children’s rights. This article explores how Irish juvenile justice prioritises the rights of the child by examining the Children Act 2001, its underlying philosophy, and the social debates that arise when these principles are tested by public outrage, particularly in cases like the Ana Kriégel murder Therefore, Ireland’s current approach though not without flaws is a necessary expression of its duty to protect and rehabilitate children, even those who commit serious crimes.
Prior to the enactment of the Children Act 2001 (“the 2001 Act”), Irish law relied heavily on outdated preindependence legislation, notably the Children Act 1908. While that act laid down basic protections such as prohibiting the execution of children and preventing their placement in adult prisons it lacked a coherent philosophy regarding rehabilitation The 2001 Act marked a radical shift, bringing Irish law into line with international human rights standards, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Ireland ratified in 1992.
Section 93 of the 2001 Act mandates the lifelong anonymity of children involved in criminal proceedings. Section 258 allows for expungement of a child’s record after a period of good behaviour, provided the offence was not tried in the Central Criminal Court Section 258(4) elaborates that any minor whose record is expunged “shall be treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not committed or found guilty of the offence ”Most significantly, detention is explicitly considered as a last resort under section 143, which states that a court must be satisfied that detention is “the only suitable way of dealing with the child.” In practice, this means that child offenders are detained only as a last resort, with options such as community service explored first
The 2001 Act also emphasises that Gardaí must treat children with “due respect for the personal rights of the children and their dignity as human persons,” particularly given their age This reflects a core principle articulated by Charleton and McDermott, that “children have no place within a system which may
corrupt them further or which may break their undeveloped spirit ” The justice system, in their view, should aim to keep children as far removed from punitive criminal processes as possible
The Irish youth justice system is founded on a justicebased model that balances accountability with child protection. As Buckley has noted, this model differs from more punitive systems in other Western jurisdictions that have experienced a “punitive turn” and rising juvenile detention rates In contrast, Ireland’s average rate of detention for young people fell dramatically between 1998 and 2015, stabilising at around 0.04 per 1,000 of the population. Central to this approach is the Garda Juvenile Diversion Programme, described by Kilkelly as an “overwhelmingly positive” element As part of this programme, Gardaí exercise discretion when admitting juveniles As a result, law enforcement officials act as gatekeepers of children’s rights, steering many young people away from criminal proceedings. The increased emphasis on diversion and rehabilitation reflects an understanding of the societal factors contributing to juvenile crime As Charleton and McDermott argue, young people may commit crimes not out of inherent malice but due to peer pressure, a lack of comprehension, or environmental factors. Recognising this, the law aims to give them a second chance rather than condemn them for life.
However, the anonymity and protections afforded to juvenile offenders have sparked widespread controversy in high-profile cases The murder of Ana Kriégel in 2018 by two 13-year-old boys (Boy A and Boy B) provoked significant public outcry. The boys’ identities were kept anonymous throughout the proceedings and remain so today, even after they have turned 18 Their anonymity is protected under Section 93 unless identification is in the best interest of the child or the public interest, neither of which the court found applicable. This case exemplifies the tension between society’s right to know the identity of serious offenders and the child’s right to privacy. Many viewed the lifelong anonymity of such violent offenders as an affront to justice, including citizens who were charged in 2020 with identifying Ana Kriégel’s murderers by name or picture on social media As one of the defendants in that case said, she thought it was ‘wrong they are protected when [Ana] was not’. Yet unmasking child offenders can lead to vigilante attacks and longterm threats to their safety, complicating their reintegration into society
Public reactions to the Kriégel case echoed sentiments expressed after the murder of two-year-old Jamie Bulger by two 10 year old boys in the UK. Then-Prime Minister John Major remarked that “society needs to 15 | The Eagle
Gone With the Wind: The Aviation Insurance
Thomas Merton, Law
and
German, Senior Freshman
Background
Commencing on 2 October 2024, and involving over 400 aircraft worth billions of pounds, the so-called “aircraft mega-trial” is one of the largest and most complex cases ever heard in the London Commercial Court The “mega-trial” involves six actions being tried concurrently It is being heard by Mr Justice Butcher and resumed in January after a month-long adjournment. The lead claimant and world’s largest aircraft lessor, AerCap Ireland Limited, along with a host of other aircraft lessors, are seeking to recover losses from insurers over jets stranded in Russia following their invasion of Ukraine In attempting to limit unprecedentedly large payouts, insurers will seek to argue that there has been no physical loss of the aircraft and that Western sanctions would prevent them from providing cover. The importance of the outcome in this trial cannot be overstated, given that it will likely be used to guide judicial decisions in parallel lawsuits in Ireland and the US
“War risks” and “all risks” policies
One of the key points upon which the cases will turn is the question of whether the aircraft fall under “war risks” or “all risks” insurance policies. To determine this, the court will hear evidence relating to the exercise of power by the Putin government in Russia If the Kremlin directed the detention of the insured aircraft, then the court might be persuaded that the recovery of losses will be in accordance with “war risks” policies. The war risks section covers the loss or damage of the aircraft as caused by
“(c) Any act of one or more persons, whether or not agents of a sovereign power, for political or terrorist purposes and whether the loss or damage resulting therefrom is accidental or intentional.
“(e) Confiscation, nationalization, seizure, restraint, detention, appropriation, requisition for title or use by or under the order of any government (whether civil, military or de facto) or public or local authority ”
On the other hand, if it was commercial considerations that drove Russian lessees to keep the aircraft in Russia, then the court may find that “all risks” policies come into operation The “all risks” section provides cover for “physical loss or damage, however sustained, during the period of insurance”, but is subject to a war, hijacking and other perils exclusion clause. The importance of determining on the facts whether “war risks” or “all risks” policies operate is that recovery under “war risks” policies is capped, whereas recovery under “all risks” policies is not A cap on lessors’ recovery could have a huge effect on how much the insurance industry suffers from payouts to aircraft
lessors: although Lloyd’s of London has set aside £1.4bn, if a significant number of the uncapped all risks claims were to succeed, this amount would not nearly be enough.
Are the aircraft “lost” forever?
Another question which will have to be answered by the Court is whether the aircraft are “lost” or if there is a chance of their recovery. Currently, the lessors rely on the following factors in claiming for physical loss of the aircraft: the lessees’ failure to return the aircraft when requested; the lessees’ continued use of the aircraft despite the revocation of their airworthiness certificates; the alleged reregistration of the aircraft in Russia; the inability to carry out maintenance approved by the insurers and lack of spare parts in Russia. Despite these facts, an element which could influence any decision on this issue could be the Trump administration’s new relationship with the Kremlin and its efforts to end the conflict in Ukraine If there were a normalisation of relations between the West and Russia, it might then be argued that the safe return of the insured aircraft would be possible. If so, then the quantum of losses involved in the “mega-trial” might be reduced.
The role of settlements
Although there is potential for huge awards by the Commercial Court, it is apparent that there is some desire for settlements to be reached between insurers and lessors. For example, AerCap reached a settlement with the Russian state-controlled insurance company NSK in a $645m deal, which was approved by Russian and US authorities and made consistent with sanction regimes, a key obstacle to any such settlement Insurers are hoping that the deal will pave the way for further deals between Western lessors and Russian insurance companies, having regard to the fact that such deals would reduce the overall quantum awarded by the court. The total value of the London claim was already reduced from $4 7 to $3bn before the beginning of the trial, and, according to Insurance Insider, the total quantum for all aircraft stranded in Russia could be cut from initial estimates of $10bn to between $6 and $8bn
Likewise, Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE) reached a settlement in October 2024 with AXA, a commercial insurer, which could signal the willingness of lessors to settle instead of engaging in what will undoubtedly be protracted and expensive litigation Before Christmas, barristers for Dublin-based lessor SMBC Aviation Capital told the judge in the concurrent Dublin trial that they had reached an undisclosed settlement with insurer Swiss Re. In February of 2025, Dublin-based Avolon and Singapore-based BOC also announced they had reached settlements with their insurers in the Irish case According to the Irish Times on the 26th of March, the Irish cases are now all but settled, with Ms
While the language no longer labels the test as male, the masculine context remains the same and the subjectivity problem persists. We are still expecting a predominantly male judiciary to postulate on the reasonable conduct of a hypothetical individual.
The test also ignores the gendered perception of reasonableness, and the socialisation of men and women. Men are generally believed to be more reasonable in the legal world, while women have been historically categorised as “hysterical” by the judiciary Some feminist theorists have argued for a “reasonable woman” test to be set into law to address the inadequacy of the reasonable person test. However, I submit that any attempt to apply an objective standard of behaviour to govern conduct will inevitably reinforce the hierarchy of the group it specifies as its base point The reasonable woman test would not fix the predominantly white perspective entrenched in the law of torts, or address non-binary or intersex individuals. Seeking to base a hypothetical person on the basis of acceptable behaviour, this note argues, will never address all parties, and will inevitably be discriminatory in its application
Systemic issues
These problematic effects on women can also be referenced back to tort law as a direct result of capitalism
Abel argues that tort law imposes a disproportionate burden on individual responsibility rather than recognizing collective or community obligations, which stifles meaningful change
This note argues that these same criticisms can be directed towards the subjects of tort law discussed today. The distinction between physical and emotional harm is evident in the courts’ reluctance to accept claims for emotional distress caused by negligence, such as the suffering experienced from witnessing harm to a loved one This shows the court's preference for individual damage as opposed to collective suffering or accountability. This note argues that this is a misrepresentation of how society operates, as humans do not experience pain in isolation from one another. This thought process is especially damaging for women, who have historically taken on caregiving responsibilities The law should account for the community effects of harm, and advocate for communal responsibility. The individualist approach to tort law has been oppressive since its origin, and should be changed to reflect the realities of society.
Conclusion
While tort law has evolved in certain respects, its deeply entrenched hierarchies continue to disadvantage women. From the physical and emotional harm distinction to the reasonable person standard, this law reflects and perpetuates a male, capitalist perspective that fails to account for the diversity of human experiences This area of law continues to uphold patriarchal structures and must be reformed
Empty
Land or Emptied Land? The Impact of the Northern Rangelands Trust’s Conservation Practices on Indigenous and Local Communities in Kenya
Aisling Corcoran, Single Honors Law, Senior Sophister
In Northern Kenya, the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) is the largest non-government organisation governing wildlife conservancies and assumes state responsibilities for activities such as managing intercommunal disputes and resolving violent conflicts The NRT is an umbrella organisation for wildlife protection and rangeland rehabilitation and encompasses 39 community conservancies – covering over 10 per cent of the land in Kenya In Kenya, 9 million out of a population of 50 million people depend on pastoralism However, the NRT’s conservation practices which focus on protecting areas through preventing human interference – are displacing indigenous and local communities who depend on pastoralism and preventing them from utilising their ancestral land and its resources to sustain their livelihoods The NRT employs a fortress model of conservation, which is based on the belief that biodiversity protection is best achieved by creating protected areas where ecosystems can function in isolation from human disturbance. Conservation practices in Africa are driven by the belief that humans harm the environment, and this is the basis for wanting to keep humans and wildlife segregated This belief that humans harm the environment and thus they should be segregated is referred to as an ecocentric approach, urging a fundamental respect for and the need to get back to nature. The fortress model of conservation employed by the NRT is an ecocentric approach to defining nature as it prioritises nature by isolating it, as far as practicable, from human intervention
In 2022, the Living Planet Report found that there had been a 69 per cent average drop in global wildlife population sizes since 1970. From this report, it is evident that biodiversity is declining at a concerning rate and that conservation efforts are required to protect wildlife This, coupled with the emerging opinions of scientists who have studied environmental change and believe that human activities have a harmful impact on the environment, may provide a compelling rationale for why the NRT chose to employ a fortress model of conservation. Due to these beliefs, this model of conservation is usually not recognised by Western societies as harmful due to the image of frontiers as wild and uninhabited areas left in their natural condition These frontiers are often conceptualised by the West as ‘untouched wilderness’ or ‘empty land’. In Western societies, existing communities living in these areas are desocialised and associated with the wilderness itself rather than being associated with society This results in little consideration being given to the cultural practices, livelihoods and historical lands of these communities. Therefore, the fortress model of conservation can be incredibly damaging, as it reinforces the idea that these lands are empty, when the reality is that they have been
when the reality is that they have been forcibly emptied through violent dispossession and displacement of indigenous and local communities who lived there
Despite the NRT’s self-depiction as a community driven organisation and their statements that their conservancies are “owned and run by indigenous communities to improve their livelihoods”, the fortress model used by the NRT keeps pastoralists and their herds off of their ancestral grazing areas by preventing communities living on member conservancy land from using grasslands and water sources for their herds of cattle, camels and sheep. However, while local and indigenous communities are prevented from gaining access to their ancestral lands in the name of wildlife conservation, this same land is made accessible to tourists who are capable of affording luxury stays in safari lodges and resorts to facilitate their urban fantasy of experiencing 'untouched wilderness' Safari-tourism is a major source of revenue for the Kenyan economy as tourism is one of the top three contributors to Kenya's GDP, and 70 per cent of this tourism is wildlife-related. Therefore, the NRT continues to prioritise the economic exploitation of these lands over the needs of indigenous communities
Furthermore, the NRT receives millions of dollars in donor funding each year from organisations such as the United States Agency for International Development, the European Union, the Agence Française de Développement, the Danish International Development Agency, and The Nature Conservancy These financial relationships have the potential to influence how a conservancy or rangeland is managed by the NRT and can therefore allow the interests of Western organisations to supersede those of the local and indigenous people in the area This is evidenced in the global 30 by 30 initiative that was agreed to by the United Nations in December 2022, which aims to designate 30% of Earth's land and ocean area as protected areas by 2030. However, it has been noted by human rights and indigenous rights groups that the creation of new protected areas would force many communities from their homelands around the world, as they stated that the initiative was appropriating indigenous land under the guise of conserving biodiversity
The Kenyan government has provided a significant and unprecedented solution to the displacement of local and indigenous communities through the Kenyan Constitution in 2010 and the Community Land Act 2016 – both recognising community land as a system of land holding and recognising pastoralism as a system of livelihood. However, this impact is diminished when the process, which allows pastoralists to legally own and manage their own lands, has experienced significant
delays in processing applications Inefficient methods of registering community land and having applications processed have resulted in impacted communities engaging in demonstrations, writing open letters, signing petitions and initiating legal proceedings against the NRT to protect their land The demonstrations have ranged from protesting specific NRT activities - such as the residents of Western Ngilae in Samburu County protesting against the NRT’s mismanagement of an elephant sanctuary’s resources –to demonstrations targeting the general presence of the NRT within communities – such as the Protest Against NRT that took place in Merti Sub-County
There have been petitions and open letters addressed to the National Commission for Cohesion and National Integration, the Governor’s Office, the County Assembly, and multiple county commissioners asking them to withdraw support for the activities of the NRT, which have so far not been actioned. These petitions and open letters have also been extended to address international organisations such as the petition filed by the Elders and Professionals from Samburu and
Borana Communities asking potential donors to stop supporting the NRT and the open letter from the Kenya Pastoralist Journalists Alliance addressed to the Danish International Development Agency calling on them to stop funding the NRT The local and indigenous communities are also resisting the NRT through the Kenyan legal system, as seen in the March 2021 ruling in the Environment and Land Court at Kitale in which 555 community members of West Pokot County sought an injunction prohibiting the NRT and other parties “from entering, mapping, surveying and delineating community land, carrying out conservancy operations, importation of wildlife, [and] evicting community members”. The applicants were granted an interim injunction pending the decision of a bench appointed by the Chief Justice.
The Rights and Resources Initiative has found in their research that indigenous people and local communities achieve at least equal conservation results with a fraction of the budget of protected areas and noted that the difference is even greater where community rights to own their lands are legally recognized. As Kenyan conservationist Mordecai Ogada noted, “pastoralists have been the custodians of wildlife for centuries, long before any NGO or professional conservation people came to [the] area”
Secondly, and for an outsider candidate seeking to distance himself from a field of traditional candidates, including the brother of a conservative president blamed for the 2008 economic crisis, “America First” proved that Trump was different from the rest in 2016.
Trump’s populism might be new in places, but it is deeply rooted in American politics It was this brand of economics that led to the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. The 1930 Act imposed tariffs on 20,000 imported products This policy was objected to by over 1,000 economists, and business and farming interests alike In retaliation Canada and Europe introduced tariffs on US produce, leading to an over 60 per cent drop in US exports. The policy rattled the American economy sending unemployment soaring to 25 per cent This protectionist approach has largely been confined to fringe candidates in US politics for decades Trump wasn’t just the latest of these antiglobalist candidates in the modern era, but also the first to resonate with the US public to the degree he led a successful political revolution
The End of American Economic Conservatism?
Trump’s tariff policy indicates that American conservatism is being politically and economically redefined. Trump has not only given the Republican Party a new identity, but seeing that the GOP operates an effective monopoly over the intellectual physiology of conservatism in the US, Trump’s endorsement of
state controls in the markets could mean the end of the very principles that once animated the American right. Trump’s willingness to use sections 232 and 301 of the Trade Act as a political weapon calls into question the appropriate separation of powers on matters of trade Trump’s tariff policy directly undermines open trade and the rules-based order, once lauded by conservatives as a guarantee to economic stability and security.
Donald Trump may identify himself with the label of conservatism, but the protectionist economic policies he’s pursued, particularly in these early days of his second term, indicate instead that he is a populist and a nationalist. His tariff regime signals a departure from the intellectual roots of American conservatism. For a movement so defined and united by economic policy, this could have disastrous consequences for the future What could result is a populist and protectionist movement wrapped in the decaying symbols of conservatism A conservatism which is, unless rescued in an unlikely rebellion by increasingly isolated traditional Republicans, a thing of the past.
Trump’s tariffs do not constitute the development or modernisation of conservative ideals, but their replacement with the uncertainty and pragmatism of Trump’s own brand of populism Trump’s tariffs are not the application of conservative principles to an uncertain and changing world, rather they are the source of much instability themselves. While at the time of writing there has been a temporary pause on some of the reciprocal tariffs, not including those imposed on China, it appears that they will be, certainly in some cases, a common feature of Trump's foreign and economic policies.
