Dr. Munir Nuseibah:

This is exactly the issue. First, European Union law is international law because ultimately it is treaties, conventions, etc. among different European states. However, there are other international laws, including, for example, the Genocide Convention and many others. One of my main arguments is that if we find European law, which is part of international law, contradicts the Genocide Convention or any other obligation for Ireland under international law, peremptory norms of international law are higher than European law. Therefore, the commitment to prevent genocide, not to participate in genocide and not to contribute to war crimes and crimes against humanity is higher than any of the other laws that the European Union, or any other region for that matter, upholds. That is the first thing.

However, European law also states obligations for European rights. Ireland is one of the countries that has made an important step recently, with other countries at European Union level, to revise the association agreement with Israel based on its breaches of human rights. I do not think European law is not sustaining the prevention of genocide. Rather, no action is being taken by states, so it is more of a political issue than a legal one. However, if Ireland decided it would take action and take its legal responsibility seriously, it would become a legal issue and other European countries that disagreed with Ireland, such as Germany – I do not want to start naming the countries I expect – could take negotiations, legal action, etc., if they saw that Ireland’s interpretation of its international legal responsibilities in an holistic way was wrong. I do not think that will happen, by the way. It is very difficult right now to defend a point of view that Israeli sovereign bonds should be authorised, given all the evidence we have about the way Israel is using this money. This argument cannot be sustained if it is going to be examined.