Defence committee weighs in on how to scrap the 'Triple Lock' for Irish troop deployments
The committee has not opposed the passing of the bill, which would see the requirement for UN approval for overseas deployment removed from existing law, but it has recommended giving more oversight powers to the Oireachtas.
As it stands, a contingent of more than 12 soldiers cannot be despatched to another country without the approval of the government, the Dáil and the UN, although there are exceptions for some non-combat duties.
The removal of the need for a UN mandate has been a fraught political issue, with those in favour saying it curtails Ireland's ability to participate in overseas missions that do not get the green light from the UN Security Council.
Advertisement
Those opposed to its removal have raised concerns that sending troops abroad outside of UN peacekeeping missions would compromise Ireland's military neutrality.
Many of the
recommendations the Oireachtas committee published today
aim to ensure that troop deployments are carried out with close adherence to UN practices and in accordance with international law.
For example, the committee has recommended that the proposed legislation specify that Irish forces cannot be deployed as part of a mission led by someone who is under investigation from the International Criminal Court (ICC), and that troops should not be involved with missions in which cluster munitions and landmines might be used.
Ireland is a signatory to conventions banning the use of cluster bombs and land mines but they are still used by some countries, like the United States and Russia.
Another recommendation from the committee, the first of 27, is that Ireland 'explore the opportunity for the Defence Forces to provide protection and support to the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice and other multilateral organisations'.
The ICC in particular has been targeted by Israel and its allies since it issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister for their conduct during the assault on Gaza in Palestine. The United States
has sanctioned the court's lead prosecutor and some of its judges.
Related Reads
Opinion: Scrapping the Triple Lock is an ill-considered and potentially catastrophic step
'We cannot stand aside': Taoiseach hints at push to remove triple lock at 1916 commemoration
Does the UN Security Council have final say when it comes to sending Irish troops abroad?
Other recommendations made by the committee focus on practical matters related to troop deployment and oversight.
It has recommended that, 'at minimum', there be a legal review of any proposed deployment carried out by an independent body and that a report should be made available to all Oireachtas members and the public.
It also recommended that the government should be required to renew a mandate for an overseas mission 'at regular intervals' with a majority vote in the Dáil, and that the government seek approval from the Dáil for a mission that goes beyond 12 months.
The new legislation should also allow for an urgent review of a despatch or deployment on request of a Dáil or Seanad resolution or by request of the defence committee, it recommended.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More
Support The Journal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Trump claims victory on trade - but EU had little choice
In many respects US President Donald Trump achieved his aims by introducing a swath of tariffs with America's main trading partners around the world. The European Union has a population of 448 million compared to the US which has 340 million. However, the US economy is larger. Many have been surprised at the way Donald Trump has appeared to be able to dictate terms to Europe. His announcement yesterday that he would commence the new tariff arrangements from 7 August appeared to be his decision with little input from the EU. President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen has defended the deal, which will see tariffs of 15% imposed on EU goods. There are two reasons why the EU did not want a full blown trade war with Mr Trump. Firstly, European businesses were opposed to a prolonged period of tit-for-tat tariffs with enormously damaging consequences. Secondly, if relations with Mr Trump soured, he could threaten to row back on defence commitments. The EU is highly reliant on the US for arm supplies, funding for NATO and military support for Ukraine. But looking at scale of tariffs imposed on other countries the EU's 15% does not seem too damaging compared to India's 25%, Canada's 35% and Switzerland's 39%. Most of the US' main trading partners have rates of 15% or 20%. The exception is the UK's 10% tariff. However, this is not an all-inclusive rate. In other words, other rates can be added to it. Nor does Britain have a written agreement capping pharmaceutical tariffs unlike the EU. It is worth bearing in mind that while tariffs on European goods go up, Mr Trump stated the EU would be "opening up their countries at zero tariffs" for US exports. Unanswered questions From the Irish point of view there are still many unanswered questions. There is no agreement on alcohol exports to the US. That sector was expected to be covered by a zero-for-zero tariff arrangement but that has not yet been confirmed. This is critical for Ireland's whiskey industry and the EU's wine exports. It seems clear that pharmaceuticals and computer chips will face tariffs of up to 15%, but the timing is still uncertain. Both are subject of so-called Section 232 investigations because Mr Trump believes the US' use of imports is a national security issue. Tánaiste Simon Harris said the tariffs for sectors under investigation will not become clear until those processes are concluded. For pharmaceuticals that is expected to happen in two weeks. But the fact that the EU-US agreement won't exceed 15% does provide some clarity for the industry. Bank of Ireland pointed out that drugs are relatively inelastic, which means if prices go up people still buy them because they are prescribed by doctors. The new swath of tariffs come at a time when the dollar has been weakening and making EU exports to the US more expensive at the worst possible time. Then there is the question of what this all means for the Irish economy. In March, the Department of Finance and the Economic Social Research Institute published research on the impact of tariffs on the Irish economy. It looks at a range of scenarios from tariffs of 10% to 25%. Based on that analysis, officials at the Department of Finance told business leaders yesterday that the economy would continue to expand, but at a slower pace than previously expected. Employment will grow but at a slower rate. The Government will now have to decide how all this will impact the Budget in October. But while Mr Trump may believe he has achieved his aims on tariffs, in the long run his actions carry the risk of higher inflation in the US and undermining the American economy.
Sunday World
4 hours ago
- Sunday World
Ex-Provo says he's proud IRA chiefs asked him to tell world their war was over
Séanna Walsh became the first IRA man for decades to stand in front of a camera and talk on behalf of the organisation without a mask Seanna Walsh, announces that IRA leadership has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign in 2005. The former Provo who told the world the IRA's war was over has revealed it remains one of the proudest moments of his life – but he had to get his daughters' approval first. Séanna Walsh spoke to the Sunday World on the week of the 20th anniversary of the jaw-dropping statement that declared an end to the IRA's violent campaign which saw them murder more than 1,700 people. On July 28, 2005, Séanna became the first IRA man for decades to stand in front of a camera and talk on behalf of the organisation without a mask. In a DVD that was distributed all over the world, he said the terrorist group was laying down its arms and was committing to a new peaceful strategy of achieving its goal of a united Ireland. Not everyone believed them but 20 years on only the most diehard unionist would argue that the IRA still exists as a violent force. Seanna Walsh, announces that IRA leadership has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign in 2005. Séanna (68) reveals this week why he thinks he was chosen to deliver that message, how he had check it was okay with his family first and how he feels about it 20 years later. While a number of ceasefires had been announced and collapsed since 1994, the 2005 statement saw the start of the decommissioning of weapons. The IRA statement delivered by Séanna said that members had been instructed to use exclusively peaceful means and not to engage in any other activities whatsoever. 'I had to be unmasked,' says Séanna – now a Sinn Féin Belfast city councillor – told the Sunday World. 'It had to be that way because we were doing something different. 'It was the defining moment of my life as a republican and I'm very proud of the fact the IRA leadership asked me to be the person to read the statement. 'I wasn't wearing a mask because we had to move away from that but I wasn't worried because I was quite convinced the days of the armed conflict were over. Séanna Walsh reflects on delivering historic IRA statement 20 years on News in 90 Seconds, Friday August 1 'It was made in the grounds of the Roddy's (Roddy McCorley's Club) and there's a museum there today and you can push the button and play the video and actually there's a recording of me reading the statement in English but also in Irish.' Walsh was a 48-year-old father-of-three when he made the statement which lasted just over four minutes and was filmed in the grounds of the west Belfast club. By then he'd already been in jail three times for his role in violent republicanism – in fact by the time he was released in 1998 he'd spent more time behind bars than out – and his track record was one of the reasons he believes he was chosen to read out the statement. 'I didn't ask them why I was chosen,' says Walsh. 'I was approached by an IRA comrade and that's as much as I can say. I suppose it's because I was confident enough to do it. 'I think they asked me because of the fact I'd served time in the Cages (Long Kesh), where I first met Bobby Sands, and where I shared a cell with him and we became very close friends. 'Then during the hunger strike period I was back in the H-Blocks and suffered the abuse of the blanket protest and was then in charge of the H-Blocks after Bik McFarlane stood down. 'On being released I went back to the struggle and was recaptured a third time and sentenced to 22 years the third time and was finally released in 1998. 'When I was asked would I be prepared to be the one to read the statement to camera and this would go out globally, I had to take a step back and I told them I'll have to think about this because I have three daughters, two of which were teens and the other was only a child. 'I needed to sit down and go through it all with my family – my wife is a long-standing republican in her own right and shared a cell in jail in Armagh with Mairéad Farrell for a number of years. 'So my wife was okay with it and the girls were absolutely supportive – the one thing I was most concerned about was the way that stuff like this can impact on their opportunities to travel and them being at that age. 'So I sat down with them and talked it over with them and I came back and said 'yes I'll do it'. I was a bit concerned about putting myself above the parapet and making myself a target of abuse because we were putting it up to the establishment in a way we hadn't really done before.' For the record, Walsh was jailed for terrorist offences including robbing banks, having a rifle and being caught with explosives but he sticks by the controversial claim that there was 'no alternative'. But he says the growth of Sinn Féin in the Republic actually pushed the IRA closer to a ceasefire as they found Dublin a colder house than before. 'Nationalists and certainly republicans felt there was no alternative to armed struggle but when republicans were convinced that there was a viable alternative to ending British government interference in this part of Ireland without recourse to armed struggle, they jumped at it with both hands and grasped it,' he says. 'To talk about 2005 you really have to talk about the statement Gerry Adams made in April where he talks about the time is now right for the IRA to leave the stage. 'That triggered a whole period of consultation across the republican family... it was time for the IRA to leave the stage because it was leading to excuses on the part of other people, the people in opposition to ourselves. 'When you look back in the years when Sinn Féin was a political party and their strength lay in the North, the Dublin government were a lot less hostile after the IRA ceasefire but Sinn Féin's strength was growing in the south and they were becoming, as far as they were concerned, a threat politically to the southern establishment and that's when things started becoming problematic with the Dublin government.' He says the archives will show that neither unionism nor the British government believed his statement was completely genuine. 'If you look back at the archives the British downplayed it, the unionists totally poo-pooed it and even then later in the year when you had the statement from De Chastelain (chairman of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning), that he was satisfied guns had been put beyond use you still had this scepticism in unionism that didn't believe it.' Last weekend, Séanna took part in a discussion about his historic statement along with Gerry Adams, chaired by Mairéad Farrell TD – niece of IRA member Mairéad who was shot dead in Gibraltar – in Belfast's Balmoral Hotel. Speaking before the event, Gerry Adams voiced regret that the statement of 2005 took so long to come, suggesting the UK government was focused on 'defeating republicanism'. He said: 'It took decades and one of my regrets is that it took so long. In my humble opinion it took so long because the two governments, particularly the British government, only sought peace on its terms, which meant defeat the IRA, it meant defeat republicanism and that doesn't work, our people are resolute.' He added: 'The proof of it is that 20 years later the IRA isn't a feature.'
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Ireland has too many quangos and too many lawyers feeding off its clientelist politics
If government is the group of people who run a state and the formal rules and institutions by which they do so, governance is how they go about that through networks, processes, interests, ideologies and political actors at different levels. The Republic of Ireland has a well-defined and clearly identifiable government structure, formally accountable through elections and the Oireachtas and amply covered by media . In contrast its governance is much more opaque, less visible to its citizens and its media coverage is patchy and uneven. This matters because the Republic currently suffers from a series of problems – in housing, energy, water, climate, health and care infrastructure and in its economic model – that arise from suboptimal governance just as much as from short-sighted or incompetent governments. These problems are often made more visible by comparisons with similar states in Europe and elsewhere. This State is one of the most centralised in Europe , whether defined by the functional and geographical concentration of executive and political power in Dublin or the comparatively puny powers of both parliamentary and local government. Such centralisation puts an onus on political leaders and executive managers to get things right through coherent, integrated policymaking. READ MORE The abiding localism of Irish life is channelled to the capital by networks of TDs, private lobbying and clientelism that dominate the distribution of resources. That perfectly matches the retail, consumerist and reactive side of everyday Irish politics – and provides much of the media agenda. Less often discussed are the resulting poor outcomes across a range of public services because more local and regional structures of governance are unavailable to policymakers. [ Fintan O'Toole: The three pillars of Ireland's political system are crumbling Opens in new window ] Instead policymaking is often outsourced to quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations). An OECD report identified 800 of them and said they clog up Irish governance and inhibit local government . Notorious examples of poor practice and opaque structures in health and educational bodies provide daily headline news. If we are over-quangoed we are also over-lawyered in planning and insurance per head of comparable European populations. These issues show up plainly in how Irish governments responded to the growing population over the past decade during the economic recovery and expansion after the financial crisis. Immigration of skilled labour through work permits has increased the population by 16 per cent, or more if refugees are also factored in. Imperatives of economic growth drove the expansion; but it was not accompanied by plans to increase housing and infrastructure to provide for a growing and more complex society demanding greater public services. Instead market forces prevailed, but they failed to meet that demand. [ Chronic inability to build anything big in the State is baked into the system Opens in new window ] These widening gaps were identified by some analysts and commentators, and they then became part of the political and election agenda. But they have dominated public debate only since being put there squarely by big economic players and international organisations over the past year. Infrastructure deficits inhibit new investments, they say – and that coincides with wider concerns about how vulnerable the Irish economic model has become to international shocks, particularly from Donald Trump. Hence the level of interest in the National Development Plan and its methodology. Rather than base it on an analysis of changing demographics, economic trends and social needs which generate development priorities, its method is more ad hoc in response to the uncertain international backdrop. Detailed project plans await definition, as the scale of the Trump tariff shock is assessed. In the meantime, different Government departments are allocated capital expenditure envelopes based on their bargaining power. How will the updated National Development Plan shape Ireland in years to come? Listen | 35:59 It's a far cry from the strategic foresight approach to governing increasingly advocated by analysts, companies, the EU and international organisations. That involves gathering information about relevant trends and potentially disruptive risks, developing scenarios about plausible futures and integrating such insights into anticipatory planning. The OECD has advocated such an approach for Ireland and there are several initiatives in government and academia to apply them. Had they been deployed over the past decade we could have been better prepared to tackle these development gaps – not to mention linking them to the equally plausible prospect of a united Ireland. Notwithstanding the highly centralised nature of Irish government, it has lacked the capacity to aggregate governance coherently and to resist particular interests. The consequences of changing demographics and economic growth should have been more effectively foreseen, but were not. For that politicians and executive managers should share the blame. [ Tariff 'uncertainties' could 'weigh heavily' on Irish economic growth Opens in new window ] The problems are exacerbated by the narrow base of Irish taxation, in which 10 US corporations provide 40 per cent of corporate tax revenue, along with the glaring six-fold contrast between the multinational sector's high productivity and that of indigenous industry. Tackling these problems requires structural change in the Republic's governance to decentralise and redemocratise power, by prioritising and co-ordinating development gaps more effectively with better analysis. That would help repair the seriously widening distributional and political gaps between older and younger generations.
