Dr. Munir Nuseibah:

Good afternoon. I thank the distinguished ladies and gentlemen for their kind invitation to speak before them while they discuss a topic that is important for Ireland, the EU and humanity. I am a professor of international law and the founder and head of the human rights clinic at Al-Quds University in Palestine.

In my oral statement, I will provide my legal opinion and advice on the matter under examination by this distinguished committee by taking into consideration the most recent developments and discussions. In a recent questioning before TDs, Mr. Gabriel Makhlouf, the Governor of the Central Bank, stated:

...the Central Bank has to operate within the rules set down for us. In this particular case the rules make no reference to the Genocide Convention so we cannot take it into account.

This statement demonstrates a gap between actions and international obligations. It also highlights a legal issue that has been resolved in international law, namely, the hierarchy of international legal obligations. Furthermore, it raises the question of the status of Ireland’s obligations as an independent and sovereign state while being a member of the European Union and other international organisations. My statement will focus on these points.

First, if and when international legal obligations conflict, what do we do? International law stems from customs, treaties and other sources. Of course, each agreement a state authors or joins is designed to serve its interests and reflect its principles. However, in some situations, like the one potentially highlighted by Mr. Makhlouf, legal obligations conflict. International law obligations are not all equal and there are cases where the choice is clear. At the top of the pyramid of principles in international law are jus cogens norms, also known as pre-emptory norms of international law.

Such norms are the ones that the international community understands and recognises as binding on all states, without any derogations. They stem from customary international law and treaty law. Examples of this type of norm include the prevention of genocide, torture, forcible displacement and other international crimes. They also include the right to self-determination.

The actions and words of the Governor of the Central Bank demonstrate that he prioritises what he sees as Ireland's obligations according to EU law, and argues that the EU and UN should look into measures against Israel. Authorising the sale of bonds contributes to Israel's genocide operations, colonisation of the occupied Palestinian territory and its long-standing denial of the right of the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination. Even if EU agreements allow or, as argued, oblige Ireland to authorise the sale, the higher obligation of the Irish State is to prevent genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In its advisory opinion in July 2024, the International Court of Justice stated:

... all states [every state around the world] are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

This is an order for all states.

My second point is that Ireland is an independent state, with full responsibility for the actions of its organs. It has been argued in the same context that it is the responsibility of the EU or the UN to address questions of genocide and other crimes, not the Central Bank or Ireland on its own. Some also argued that Ireland's contribution to ending genocide must be exclusive to diplomatic means. This argument has no foundation in international law. Ireland is an independent sovereign country with full personality in international law. It is not a region within a federation. The EU does not erase the independence, hence the responsibility, of each state within the Union. Also, a state may not act in a way that contradicts its obligations, even if it struggles against violations in diplomatic circles. As a sovereign independent state, the Republic of Ireland bears the responsibility of all of its organs. If an illegal action stems from its Government, Judiciary, legislators or other organs such as the Central Bank, in that case, Ireland is held liable.

Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states: "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty ...". Similarly, Article 3 of the codified international legal reference on the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts stipulates:

The characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law. Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law.

Article 4 of the same law reads:

1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State.

2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.

Hence, it is the responsibility of Ireland to reform its due diligence procedures and legal system in a way that prevents the violation of its international legal obligations. In international law, any violation by Ireland of pre-emptory norms of international law can bring about state liability, as well as individual criminal responsibility for individuals who contribute personally to the criminal act, including by facilitating the funding of an apartheid regime, that is using its budget for genocide, ethnic cleansing, continued colonisation, torture and degrading treatment, and many other atrocities.

I recommend that the Republic of Ireland immediately act to stop its role in the authorisation of Israel bonds. Furthermore, it should reform the system that allows for the continued Irish role. This is based on the fact that: first, Israel is committing international crimes, including but not limited to genocide. The International Court of Justice declared the Israeli occupation as illegal and as a regime of apartheid and-or racial segregation in its advisory opinion in 2024. The bonds are financing these crimes.

Second, even if Ireland has legal obligations stemming from its membership in the European Union, these must not contradict pre-emptory norms of international law, which include genocide, apartheid, forcible displacement, and many other crimes.

Third, Ireland is an independent state, and must not assume that its membership of the EU, or the independence of the Central Bank, will prevent its own liability for aiding genocide and other crimes.

Finally, aiding international crimes also invokes individual criminal responsibility, in addition to state responsibility. Ireland has incorporated the provisions of the Rome statute into its domestic criminal code. Hence, aiding international crimes also has risks for officials of the Central Bank.