As set out by the Minister earlier in this session, the purpose of the defence (amendment) Bill is to consolidate the existing provisions of the Defence Acts concerning the despatch of members of the Defence Forces for service outside the State. In effect, the requirement for a UN mandate will be removed. It will modify the existing requirement regarding the so-called triple lock mechanism in relation to the despatch of the Defence Forces for service outside the State as part of an international United Nations force. It is important to note that the Bill will also seek to amend the Defence Act to provide for the suspension of members of the Defence Forces, thereby giving effect to recommendations in the 2024 Ward report on the management of members of the Defence Forces charged with, or convicted of, serious criminal offences. There has been extensive engagement between the Department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on the drafting of the Bill, and the Minister intends to bring the Bill to the Government for approval shortly. As previously outlined to the House, the continued reliance on a UN Security Council mandate can have direct practical consequences for Ireland’s peacekeeping engagements. A very recent and tangible example is in relation to UNIFIL. We saw one power exercising its veto at the UN Security Council. Had the mandate for UNIFIL not been renewed - as was the case for a short period of time - Ireland would have been legally obliged to plan for the immediate withdrawal of Defence Forces personnel from that mission. Similar issues arise in respect of other operations, with concerns arising in relation to the upcoming renewal of the UN mandate of Operation Irini in the Mediterranean in early June. The outcome is currently unclear and if this mandate is not renewed, it would necessitate the immediate withdrawal of Irish troops under the current legislative provisions. The mission would continue nonetheless in its humanitarian work and its work to prevent illegal weapons coming into Europe because it is an EU mission. The Bill also provides for reinforced safeguards governing any future overseas deployments. While the UN Security Council mandate requirement is being removed, the legislation expressly requires that all such deployments be consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and with international law.
Sentiment score: 0.19
The Deputy is correct that under Article 29 of the Constitution, Ireland's international relations are founded upon international justice and morality. Our Constitution affirms our "devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations". That is not changing. That is in our Constitution. That is the entire basis on which the Government exercises its foreign policy. The removal of the triple lock in current circumstances has no impact whatsoever on Ireland's policy of military neutrality. All it means is that we are not giving the authority to any of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to determine what our foreign policy is in terms of our peacekeeping missions. It is a fact that the UNIFIL mission was stopped, effectively, by one member of the UN Security Council. It is also a fact that if a mission were to continue, for example under EU auspices, in Lebanon, it is entirely unclear as to whether Ireland could take part in that without a UN Security Council mandate. Operation Irini would continue as a very effective peacekeeping mission but Ireland would not be able to be part of it without a UN Security Council mandate.
Sentiment score: 0.18
All deployments of Irish troops abroad under this legislation have to be consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. I have already said that I agree with the Deputy in relation to the Constitution. However, I suggest that nobody in this House agrees with the decision of the UN Security Council to end peacekeeping duties in Lebanon.
Sentiment score: 0.37
The General Assembly has not put forward any proposal in relation to that and it is not practical for us to-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
There have been no proposals in the General Assembly to continue a mission in Lebanon. At the end of the day the Security Council is the authoritative body on international security. That is just the reality of the situation. We have an incredibly proud track record of peacekeeping under our Constitution and consistent with UN principles. We would like that to continue. In the current environment it literally cannot continue in Lebanon because of the decision of the UN Security Council. That mandate is coming to an end because of a decision effectively of one country. If another peacekeeping mission were agreed, for example at EU level, we could not take part in it under the current legislation. All we are trying to do is to make our own sovereign decisions and continue the peacekeeping work that we have done over many generations.
Sentiment score: 0.36