That Feminist Ire piece from 2018 gets more relevant every year. feministire.com/2018/01/22/a...
An open letter to the organisers of the “We Need to Talk Tour” from a group of feminists in Ireland
We write as cisgender feminists in Ireland to the organisers of the ‘We Need To Talk’ speaking tour who plan to hold an event in Ireland in February. The main purpose of the ‘We Need To Talk’ tour …
feministire.com
ᚅᚓᚃ ᚆᚐᚔᚏᚇᚑ ᚃᚆᚑ ᚇᚔᚄ@ciara2001.eurosky.social · 2w agoRich English woman threatening Irish cultural organisation, outside of the supine UK press I can't see that story playing well anywhere else
![Excerpt from p. 34 of the Policy Exchange Report:
"Article 194(2) is one of the several UNCLOS provisions that the Advisory Opinion says entails a stringent due diligence standard.62 Moreover, in concluding that ‘the term “activities” in Article 194, paragraph 2, encompasses activities which produce [greenhouse gas] emissions’,63 the Advisory Opinion greatly enlarges the scope of activities that a litigant might attack by invoking that UNCLOS provision. States, in adopting Article 194(2), intended to impose legal responsibility, e.g. when an oil spill originating in State A spreads beyond ‘the areas where [State A] exercise[s] sovereign rights’. No doubt adjacent areas—e.g. neighbouring State B’s territorial sea, or the high seas immediately past the outer limits of State A’s Exclusive Economic Zone—are concerned in Article 194(2); environmental effects of pollution, or at least their geographic scope, are broadly forecastable on that understanding of the provision, and causal linkage between such effects and injuries is conceivably determinable, even if parties likely will contest it. By contrast, the injuries and the scope of responsibility that Article 194(2) embraces according to the Advisory Opinion now would seem very considerably larger, harder to forecast, and almost inevitably to be bedevilled with uncertainties about causation. Greenhouse gas emissions, considering their global spread, long-term effects, and differentiated impact on different States, seem very different from the kinds of pollution States Parties had in mind in 1982 when they concluded UNCLOS. Now, however, if judges and arbitrators treat the Advisory Opinion as governing law for the interpretation of UNCLOS that difference does not matter."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:qd6lsomkpzi6ydr2n53istel/bafkreihr7dtxd3nab23cdsqpqmweujihg4wm4n2pizgeguflr42smafr3y)
