John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind members that, in accordance with constitutional requirements, they must be present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not a permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. A member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members participating via MS Teams to confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus prior to making their contribution.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

As the witnesses will probably be aware, the committee will publish the opening statements on its website following this meeting.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make her him or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with such direction. Before we begin our engagement, Deputy Ó Fearghaíl has indicated he wants to make a comment.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I raise the fact that the occupied territories Bill went to Cabinet this morning. I request that the committee seek a detailed presentation from the Government in respect of its proposals, now approved by the Cabinet, on the occupied territories Bill. The committee was unanimous in adopting the Bill in the form it came before us and it is now proposed that it be changed. I would like to hear in detail the rationale for that. Given the time that we gave to consideration of the Bill, that is the least we are entitled to at this stage.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I echo that call. It was a concern raised at the meeting at 12.30 p.m. that we need to see the workings of this with regard to our own recommendations.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue did come up at the meeting. For members of the public who are watching in, this committee meets in private, as all committees do on a regular basis, to consider housekeeping matters such as correspondence, calendar issues, etc. The Bill was raised today in private. There may be protocols of which I am not aware. I am slightly disappointed as well and echo what Deputy Ó Fearghaíl said, given the work that we had done, but the Government clearly is not responsible to this committee. It would have been interesting for the committee to have had sight of the rationale behind the Government's decision. That is noted. The Deputy is asking that we communicate that to the Minister. The Minister is due to appear before this committee in two or three weeks, so obviously all members will have the opportunity to question her then.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand from what the Chief Whip said in the Chamber just now that the Bill might be listed on the Order Paper for next week. That being the case-----

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a recess next week.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is great that we have a recess but we have an opportunity then to hear from the Minister.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister will appear before the committee as well. Does anybody else want to say something before I move on?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think a letter would be good because the Bill will possibly be in the Dáil before we hear from the Minister.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our witnesses. From the Article 109 Coalition, I welcome Ms Rita French, interim director and director of policy and diplomatic engagement; and Mr. Saul Kenny, communication manager. From United for Peace Ireland, I welcome Mr. Chris O'Neill. The witnesses are probably familiar with the format of the meeting. The witnesses make their opening statements and then each member has seven minutes, which includes time for answers. The witnesses will be able to see their time disappear and reappear on the clock. At 3.45 p.m., Deputy Ó Fearghaíl has agreed to take my place in the Chair for a time, if that is agreeable to everybody. Is that agreed? Agreed. I very much appreciate the Deputy facilitating that.

I now ask the witnesses to make their opening statements. We will start with the Article 109 Coalition, followed by United for Peace Ireland.

Ms Rita French:

I thank the committee for inviting us to present the work of the Article 109 Coalition and to discuss the timely topic of UN reform. While we have travelled to Brasilia, New York, Johannesburg, London, Paris, Istanbul and Nairobi in the past year, this is our first hearing with a committee of a national parliament.

That is already a signal of Ireland's openness to explore how we should adapt our global institutions to reflect the needs and demands of the world today, for which the Article 109 coalition is grateful.

Members of the committee are all too familiar with the geopolitical shifts taking place today. A line in a poem by W.B. Yeats perhaps best captures those trends: "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world". That is the situation in which we find ourselves. The world is witnessing the return of the law of the jungle, where in place of multilateralism, we see the trampling of global norms, a shift towards transactional geopolitics, the fragmentation of institutions and the international system's ability to deliver in free fall. This should come as no surprise. The foundational text of our international system, the United Nations Charter, was drafted more than 80 years ago, in a time before the nuclear bomb was dropped, the advent of the Internet and the realisation of the damage we were doing to the environment. It was drafted by only 50 countries, many of which were still colonial powers. Today, 193 countries are members of the United Nations.

The Article 109 coalition is advocating for governments to invoke Article 109 of the UN Charter to allow for a general conference to review the charter. Article 109 was included in 1945 with a commitment to review the charter within ten years of its adoption. Over 80 years later, we are still waiting for that promise to be delivered. Ireland should play an active role in advocating for review of the UN Charter and reinforcing its position on the world stage as a leader in multilateralism. This is because Ireland has developed a principled yet pragmatic foreign policy during its journey from a colonised country on the periphery of Europe to being an actor on the global stage. Its seven decades at the UN include an unbroken record in peacekeeping and helping the sustainable development goals come to life.

However, the very norms and structures Ireland has a long history of supporting are now in jeopardy. Support for international co-operation today cannot be limited to words or the status quo. It must extend to actively engaging with efforts to adapt to a changed world. In fact, that is essential to ensuring organisations like the United Nations, and the principles written into its charter, survive. That is the message we want to bring to the committee today. In view of Ireland's deep commitment to international law, and recognising the risks an unstable world will bring to small and middle powers like it, Ireland can and must be at the forefront of efforts to adapt the UN to changing and challenging times.

Renewing the UN Charter is increasingly understood as a viable pathway to deliver this fundamental change, with Brazil, India and South Africa, as well as the Gambia, Kazakhstan, Honduras and North Macedonia, backing UN Charter renewal. Civil society organisations are also joining our call, with our coalition now including some 100 members and partners from around the world. Over the course of this meeting, I am sure we will touch on how renewing the UN Charter is a pathway to delivering fundamental change, one that can advance Ireland's interests in peace and security, development, trade and partnerships.

We also want to underline how UN Charter review is not merely an exercise in semantics. As the world becomes more violent, each failure of the UN to act means lives are lost, children go hungry and human rights are abused. This is as relevant in Gaza and Ukraine as it is in Myanmar and Sudan. Parliamentarians from around the world, including here in Leinster House, must echo citizens’ support for international norms, law and co-operation. We are not destined to submit to a more transactional and brutal world. Globally, even in a fragmented world, there is still support for multilateralism. This is seen in the World Health Organization's ongoing management of the Ebola outbreak, the 141 member states that recently voted in the UN General Assembly to back the International Court of Justice ruling on climate and resistance to the Board of Peace.

Deepening international co-operation, and nurturing and developing conditions for lasting peace can, as President Catherine Connolly has noted, "only be achieved by both supporting and reforming the institutions and organisations of the United Nations". Renewing multilateralism is the new frontier of international relations. Parliamentarians can lead the way in making sure its future is more effective, just and representative. We look forward to this exchange. Go raibh maith agaibh.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms French. I invite Ms Neill to make her opening statement.

Ms Chris Neill:

I thank the Cathaoirleach, Deputies and Senators for their invitation to this meeting. Uniting for Peace Ireland, U4PIRL, is the Irish team of a global civil society campaign to highlight UN Resolution 377, uniting for peace. We believe in the Charter of the United Nations and the power it holds, but we understand that there are increasingly challenges to trust in the organisation. The uniting for peace resolution was brought as a motion to the Dáil on 28 May 2025 and carried with support from all parties. The United Nations is kept strong by faith in it, which is not to be confused with optics. Every time a member of our permanent mission team speaks at the General Assembly, that member proudly states that he or she is speaking on behalf of the Irish people.

Calls for reform of the UN have been growing. Too often, reference surveys on confidence in the UN fall short of collecting data from Ireland. During the past 12 months of our campaigning on behalf of UN Resolution 337, the Uniting for Peace Ireland team has been in the unique position of hearing from Irish citizens about their confidence in the UN. Some citizens we meet at rallies are very well informed about UN policy but many have a basic working knowledge at best. The key challenge we see is the lack of faith citizens have in the United Nations based on a growing departure from the desire by the UN to adequately enforce peace and security for all nations.

This has presented in various complaints we have heard from Irish citizens both in person and on social media and when requesting other advocacy groups to support our campaign and to renew support for the UN through their campaigns. Examples of this have been highlighted through the media. One such complaint concerns the weaponisation of access to the UN headquarters in New York. Proposals have been voiced by Irish citizens for a neutral location, such as Geneva or possibly even Ireland, which would be lovely, to be the new permanent UN headquarters.

The protection of staff working for the UN is another issue. Concern is being raised that roles cannot be carried out adequately under the immense threat of legal action by member states. In March this year, the former UN special rapporteur on human rights, Ms Mary Lawlor, stated, "special rapporteurs should never be sanctioned for carrying out their mandates". She continued, "Those documenting violations and pursuing accountability are integral to the effective functioning of the codified international human rights system". Some member states have sought to undermine the immunity of UN staff with sanctions and executive orders. If the Irish public is to have faith in the process and integrity of the mandates of special rapporteurs and human rights defenders, the UN must offer proportionate protection to ensure they can carry out those mandates.

In November 2024, the Irish ambassador, H.E. Mr. Fergal Mythen, addressed the General Assembly on the use of veto power by permanent members of the Security Council. Ambassador Mythen stated:

Ireland deeply regrets the use of the veto this morning by a permanent member of the Council on a resolution on Gaza, which demanded an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire... It follows a veto by one permanent member earlier this week on a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Sudan...

Both vetoes represent a clear dereliction by the Council of its duties. Inaction in the face of such human suffering is unacceptable.

The ambassador is correct that the use of veto has dealt harm to the credibility of the UN Security Council.

While we are a civil society group that sees the strengths and weaknesses in the UN, often through the eyes of the Irish public we are trying to garner support from, our presence here today is foremost to highlight that in order to reform the UN, it is essential to reignite faith in the Irish public to accept that reform. Trust in the organisation is key, not in the form of rebranding, which would only serve to heighten suspicion, but for Ireland to assist in enforcing peace and security for all nations. Ambassador Mythen's take on the veto is a block on which to build. The core pillars of the UN Charter were written to be effective, not to gather dust.

In September 2024, the Secretary-General of the UN, Mr. António Guterres, stated in an interview on Al Jazeera that the Security Council is "outdated, unfair and ineffective". Ambassador Mythen's naming of the dereliction of the Security Council through veto power strengthens an avenue for more resolutions to be passed through the General Assembly, thereby bypassing the veto.

However, that must be coupled with resolutions that are binding and legally enforceable, and with accountability for non-compliance under a reasonable period of time. The opportunity which arises from Ireland’s EU Presidency offers a chance for Ireland to enhance our international standing and influence. We can lead across multiple arenas. We are well positioned to start the conversation within the UN on reform. Using the framework already in existence, like the General Assembly, pulls decisions from the ineffective Security Council. Leaning on versatile mechanisms, like uniting for peace, dispenses with the veto. The United Nations works in many ways. It is overdue time that we stress-test it in the way it works and carefully reform the ways in which it does not. Eight billion people depend on it to succeed.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Neill. Deputy McCarthy, I have given Senator Joe O'Reilly a commitment that he can contribute first.

Noel McCarthy (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I apologise for being late.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for that facilitation. We have a delegation in from Europe, and I have to meet them. I appreciate that. I welcome our witnesses. I thank them for their presentations. My first question concerns the great powers: the United States, China and Russia. If there is to be meaningful change, we need these powers on side. However, by definition, that change would take away their existing vetoes and existing powers. How do we get them on side? How do we go about working with them to bring about change when that change would not be in their best interest?

Ms Rita French:

I thank the Senator for beginning with a very important question around charter renewal. Under Article 109 of the charter, there are two stages with respect to that process. To conduct a review conference requires a vote in the General Assembly enjoined by two thirds of the membership and any nine out of the 15 UN Security Council members. To hold a review conference cannot be blocked. It is not subject to a veto. It is a procedural resolution. There is a pathway to conduct a review conference of the charter to see what is working and what we would like to develop and enhance with respect to the charter. The Senator is right regarding the second part: for any changes to the charter to take effect, again this must enjoy the support of two thirds of the UN General Assembly and be supported by all P5 members. That can be seen as an obstacle.

I wish to raise several points. First, the permanent members of the Security Council are not a homogenous group. It would be wrong to say that we should not proceed on this process because it may be blocked by a member of the P5. In fact, history has shown that every time there has been a change or revision to the charter - whether that is in terms of extension of the UN Security Council membership or with respect to membership, including for Ireland, which was blocked in 1946 by the then Soviet Union and subsequently negotiated through - momentum has come from outside the P5 membership from the majority. Then there is a process of negotiation. All of the P5 members have to recognise that they are operating in a system in which they enjoy privileges. To maintain those privileges, should they wish to have some element of that, it is in their interest to open up to reform. If a proposal is being put down for the abolition of a veto, we could rightly argue that, perhaps, they may not be putting up the "Yes" vote for that. There are many areas and aspects in relation to the charter, which I hope we will be able to expand and extend on, that can go beyond that. It is the will and negotiating that will-----

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I should have said at the outset that there is a clear need for reform. Reform is complicated by regional conflicts. For example, India versus Pakistan, Japan versus China, Germany versus Italy, etc.

Obviously, there are competing claims in Africa and the Middle East. We do not need to go there because there are so many competing difficulties there. Given these mutually exclusive positions, what objective criteria for a selection mechanism does the organisation believe can command broad legitimacy for determining the new permanent members? How would the organisation achieve a consensus around the permanent members?

Ms Rita French:

We in the Article 109 Coalition are reform agnostic. We are advocating for fulfilling a promise that was made in 1945 when the charter was drafted, but we are not advocating for a specific cause, whether that is expansion or abolition of the veto or greater powers for the General Assembly. That said, the Senator highlighted a very important element, which is that there is a lot of geopolitics at play in this space. Everyone will have slightly different positions around permanency and non-permanency. What we would be advocating for is what does good global governance look like today and what does that mean for the superior body, which is the UN Security Council, to operate effectively and in a timely manner. There are rightly questions to be asked about whether anyone should be granted a permanent veto power in those cases and what powers other bodies, such as the General Assembly, should have. These are exactly the types of conversations that I hope a review conference could help us drive forward.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Ireland were to trigger Article 109, what role would the witnesses see us playing in the reshaping of the UN Assembly? Are there specific areas they would wish to see Ireland champion and use its influence for? The witnesses have said what they do not want to happen. What could we do of merit?

Ms Rita French:

Ireland has a track record of advocating and championing multilateralism for the 71 years it has been a member. It can play an important and credible role. It has demonstrated that through its UN Security Council and Human Rights Council membership. What I would like Ireland to be advocating for is a fairer, more equitable and more representative UN that delivers for peace and security for all peoples around the world. This is a space in which Ireland as a small nation can work with many partners, not just in Europe but across the global south, to deliver.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would love to agree with Ms French. I hope she is right. That is where we all stand, but I have to ask the questions. Ms French cited Brazil, India, South Africa and others as supporting charter review. Are they a loose coalition with their own self-interests or is there any common platform among them yet?

Ms Rita French:

A vote to hold an Article 109 conference took place in 1955. At that point, the majority of the UN General Assembly and Security Council called for a review of the UN Charter, but a decision was taken to wait for more auspicious occasions. A commitment was made, therefore, by the majority of the UN membership in 1955. The Senator is right to consider whether some of these countries are in there to advocate and champion multilateralism or whether there are specific interests they are looking for through their membership. This coalition is just a list of countries that delivered that support. What the Article 109 Coalition is working for is to bring together a cross-regional group of countries, big and small, to shape and drive this. I hope that over time we will develop a group of friends of some sort in the UN to do that and take that forward. I very much hope that Ireland will be part of that.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our witnesses for coming in on for this issue, which is of massive importance but is under-discussed. I am very happy that ours is the first parliament to have the witnesses in for a discussion on this, and I hope it will be the first of many.

Regarding the Article 109 Coalition and to follow on from Senator O'Reilly's points, how has the organisation's reception been in countries that its representatives have visited so far in the semi-formal, non-parliamentarian committee format? Do they feel that a momentum is building? How can Ireland shape or push that?

Ms Rita French:

Yes. Our coalition formally established its secretariat just under one year ago.

The discussions we had last year were really around the fact that many governments and experts were not aware of this provision within the charter itself, Article 109. It was very much seen a peripheral element. Even over this period of 11 or 12 months, we have seen that change. There is more recognition and awareness of that. Regrettably, as 2026 began, the needs have become more and more apparent in that the world is changing, international law is not being respected, humanitarian needs are not being met and our response to the UN being sidelined and openly challenged through the Board of Peace is falling short. There is growing recognition that we need to respond. Political leaders have been talking very clearly about UN reform while recognising that UN80, worthy as it is in terms of the effectiveness and operation of the UN system, is not going to be sufficient to change the trajectory for multilateralism, which is downwards. We need to be bold and ambitious to ask that if we believe in the UN and that it still has a need in today's world, which it absolutely does, then what will we do as those responsible countries to help make sure it can respond to the needs of today in terms of both peace and security but also new challenges, such as climate change and AI?

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to ask Ms French and Ms Neill the same question. Do they think the international rules-based order underpinned by the UN has ever been at a lower ebb or under as much threat and challenge as it is at this moment in time?

Ms Rita French:

The simple answer is "No", absolutely not. The UN is facing existential threat. It is at the brink. It is our responsibility to recognise that we must do something bold and ambitious. We must be prepared to have those difficult conversations to ask what is working and what needs to change. Part of it depends on ensuring that we tackle some of the root causes of the problems the UN is facing. I feel the UN is unfairly tarnished when it is said that it is failing, but the failing is coming from the system, the governance and the behaviours of specific members. We need to make sure we are tackling those and that we give the Secretary General, the membership and the governance the tools they need to be able to respond to the needs of today. Yes, we are seeing that pressure in respect of creative solutions being adapted and trying to do the best we can through existing reforms, which is another signal that shows the UN is unable to respond and is failing. We encourage that, but we need to go beyond that to ensure that the UN remains fit for the 21st century.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will ask Ms Neill the same question but also an add-on in regard to Ireland having a passion for the UN itself but not having ignited a passion for UN reform. Will Ms Neill outline what she would like to see in practical steps from this committee, the Government or the State in regard to igniting a passion for UN reform, separate from the UN in general?

Ms Chris Neill:

I echo what Ms French said about Article 109. Earlier, she said that the law of the jungle is taking over and we need to acknowledge that. I refer to certain member states on the permanent side of things in the Security Council. When we talk about enforcing resolutions, punitive measures and timeframes to enforce these, there are none. The UN is only as effective as it is effective. If it is not being effective and we are putting all the time into these resolutions but they are not being enforced and there is no oversight, then another phrase that has been used lately is "might is right". Should might be right in the UN General Assembly or should we all follow an international rules-based order? We are slipping very quickly away from it.

With regard to how we could enforce things like resolutions, I know Security Council resolutions are binding but there are challenges within the Security Council. One of the things we could do is look at reforming and giving more power to the United Nations General Assembly, for example with the uniting for peace mechanism, which is triggered because the United Nations Security Council finds itself within a gridlock, paralysed by a veto or, as Ambassador Mythen said, in a state of dereliction of its duties to uphold peace and security for all nations.

Perhaps the veto power of the five permanent members is something we should look at because it should not be allowed that peace and security are overlooked because of a veto.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of time. I am really interested in this. In another committee, we have spoken about and will talk about the triple lock and peacekeeping.

Ms Chris Neill:

Yes.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms Neill believe there is a credible role for the UN General Assembly to act as a lock, acknowledging that its resolutions are not binding as such but that it would satisfy as a lock in regard to a triple lock for Irish deployment on peacekeeping missions?

Ms Chris Neill:

The uniting for peace mechanism is a failsafe for when the Security Council finds itself in a deadlock. It is very underutilised as a resolution. It is very versatile as a resolution; it can be used in a range of different areas, from humanitarian crises to emergency situations, climate relief, earthquakes and conflict. It can be used across the board. We have to lean into it. If we are serious about upholding peace and security for all nations, we need to use the framework that is there. At the end of the day, crises, whether they are humanitarian or conflict, are all fires. If you are standing with the hose - whether it is the Security Council or the General Assembly - and you have the means to put them out, and the veto tells the Security Council to put down the hose, you take that to the General Assembly and let the global representation voice its support for sending whatever is necessary under the uniting for peace mechanism. The proposals can be very finely tuned and adapted for the particular crises. I would say, in that instance, that we need to lean more heavily into the General Assembly.

There has been a lot of information around the triple lock but, at the end of the day, the mechanism is there. I know this going to be debated throughout the Dáil but I do not think that from the General Assembly there is an avenue for our peacekeeping troops to be dispatched through a mandate. That is a fact.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Neill. I thank the Chair for the extra time.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is also a fact that the veto has essentially stalled a number of peacekeeping proposals.

Ms Chris Neill:

Not from Ireland. There has not been one veto that has stopped Ireland. In the case of the UNIFIL mandate in southern Lebanon, the Security Council did not renew the mandate but it was a not a veto that stopped it. In that case, where the Security Council has failed in its primary purpose of upholding peace and security, it should be passed to the General Assembly. That is what the uniting for peace mechanism is.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure but, as it exists right now, that veto could be exercised by countries outside of our control in relation to potential missions.

Ms Chris Neill:

I think we have to look at the word "could". Every day I step out of my house, I have a risk of becoming a nun but the threat is very small.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a colourful way of putting it. Deputy Ó Fearghaíl is in next and then I will pass the Chair to him.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is very hard to know where to start. Could Ms Neill clarify what she just said? Did she say that the General Assembly is not the route to be used for the deployment of Irish troops in peacekeeping measures?

Ms Chris Neill:

The General Assembly is absolutely a route that can be used through the uniting for peace resolution.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can it?

Ms Chris Neill:

Yes.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I misinterpreted what Ms Neill said. In regard to the protracted debate that faces us on this very matter of the triple lock and the Security Council versus the General Assembly, the fact, in Ms Neill's view, is that the General Assembly can substitute more than adequately for the Security Council.

Ms Chris Neill:

The two are different animals.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Ms Chris Neill:

They are different organs within the United Nations. I recognise they are different in their own ways. One of the things I think Article 109 might want to expand on is bolstering the UN General Assembly. One of the things we might look at is that the General Assembly might carry more weight and resolutions passed there may be legally binding and enforced with timelines and a set of measures established for non-compliance with resolutions. That is something we have never had in the UN in the past.

Are there any repercussions for not following a resolution or when a resolution infringes upon a current resolution?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When it comes to the triple lock, we have got to deal with the situation as it is. Is Ms Neill saying that reform is required in order for us to be certain that the requirements, say, of the treaty-----

Ms Chris Neill:

Reform is not required currently. If we needed a resolution today to mandate blue-helmeted Irish troops to a peacekeeping mission, it could be done through the UN General Assembly.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. We were talking about the power of the big five. In truth, are we just talking about two individuals, namely, Putin and Trump? Their idiosyncratic approach - to put it at its kindest - to world affairs is so at variance with everything that went before them we are at sea and there is chaos. The public view the United Nations as having been completely ineffective in respect of the Palestinian situation or the crisis in Ukraine.

Ms Chris Neill:

Is that a question for me?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is for whoever wants it.

Ms Chris Neill:

The United Nations is us. I do not wish to specifically name any particular member state, but we are only as good as the political will we put into the United Nations. When we keep international peace and security at the centre for all nations, and have an equitable system that leans into human rights, we are stronger. The charter is stronger.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The charter and the whole concept of the United Nations, and the priority given to the big five, was based around the assumption that the people leading these five nations would at least be sane and well-intentioned in their activities, and that a discernible pursuit of the public interest could be seen in their actions. That cannot be seen in the actions of Putin in respect of Ukraine. It cannot be seen in terms of Iran or Palestine.

Ms Chris Neill:

Reform takes a period of time if it is going to be done well. There is always a changing of the guard and leadership. The terms of certain presidential offices only run for four or seven years. Maybe this is something the Article109 coalition would like to lean into. Certainly, no leader will be there forever. We have to move forward with all nations in mind.

If there is a problem with the permanent members on the Security Council, we have to, as mentioned by Ms French, look at the privilege they have. When the permanent members were made, it was at a time when those nations were harmonised and working together with a central message for all nations. We do not have that set of circumstances now. That is why we need to look at reform of the permanent members and see what is and is not working.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question for Ms French. With regard to the upcoming EU Presidency, what specific measures could Ireland usefully take to provide the sort of leadership in Europe that is required to move us towards the type of reform that urgently needs to happen?

Ms Rita French:

I will respond to the previous question as well. The UN came together in 1945 as a replacement for the League of Nations. In part, the question was whether this was about the UN and these permanent five members being the kind of global police of the world or about keeping the respective superpowers at bay. The decision was taken that in order to prevent further war, it was important that the superpowers came together at this table. The only way they could be enticed to come to a United Nations was to have some kind of privilege given to them, and that was granted. That perspective is perhaps different from the rest of the UN membership that see the UN in a much different and broader perspective. It is why Ireland participates and takes its membership in a different stance.

Member states are coming in with different perspectives.

In terms of the EU Presidency, the need for multilateral reform is urgent without doubt. There is an opportunity for Europe and Ireland, through its Presidency, to step into this space. Alternatives and different ideas are being created throughout different quarters, including from some of the permanent five members. Europe has historically championed this cause of multilateralism. Charting a pathway that other members beyond Europe can be part of is an important cause. It needs to be done quickly and urgently.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Stephenson. I also ask Deputy Ó Fearghaíl to take the Chair.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can all agree that both the UN General Assembly and the Security Council are not operating. We are seeing a huge imbalance between the Global South and the Global North in the context of the traditional five major powers, which other members referenced, that are blocking progress. I absolutely support the concepts behind the uniting for peace resolution. It is a brilliant thing that we can draw down on and initiate. The one question I have in this regard is why this has not happened up to this point. Obviously, we have seen some major failures, specifically around any credible action on Gaza, but there have been other instances in the past where the veto was used. From the witnesses’ perspective, what has been the block on getting members of the General Assembly to initiate the uniting for peace mechanism?

When it comes to Article109 and the renewal of the charter, there is also the UN80 initiative, which is largely bureaucratic in nature. We have seen a hallowing out of the human rights agenda within that. Do the witnesses see any operational overlap between their aims for the renewed charter and those of the UN80 initiative? That probably extends to the uniting for peace resolution as well. Have they seen any efforts in the UN80 reform initiative to tackle these existential challenges with the current structures of the UN, or is it more focused on cutting agencies, reducing costs and having unique agencies with specific mandates?

Ms Chris Neill:

If we look at the recent efforts with regard to the uniting for peace resolution, President Gustavo Petro of Colombia raised it in August 2025. Usually, what happens is that when someone announces that they are raising it, it will garner support and cosponsors. That did not happen in the case of President Petro, however. From an education point of view, there is a certain amount of lobbying that happens, especially within certain regions. There are factors that need to be considered for certain members, such as natural resources or embargos. There are many factors that will decide whether a nation will back and support a resolution like the uniting for peace resolution.

One of the great things about the uniting for peace resolution that people do not know about is that while states are voting for it, they can cosponsor it. If member states have some concerns that they may be lobbied or fall under some pressure, which has happened in the past, they can cosponsor while voting. Similar to the recognition of some states, some nations choose to recognise them and stay in groups over a series of days. That can be done. There are many ways in which it can be invoked, cosponsored and voted on. The proposals that are then drawn up are varying and can be adapted. Probably the biggest challenge is pressure from certain member states.

With respect to reform, it is about assisting special rapporteurs and making sure that their immunity is protected and proportionate. We must ensure they are not being sanctioned and they are not worried about whether they will have healthcare or have access to a bank account or if their mortgage will be made redundant by the end of the week. As Mary Lawlor said, this is sacrosanct. If a UN special rapporteur or a humanitarian is working on behalf of a nation for a mandate and supplying information, especially around resolutions, we need to be able to protect them. It needs to be built into the framework.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Neill. I will get the others to reply in the time I have left but I would add support to Ms Neill's point that the attacks on the special rapporteurs are an attack on the entire system. They have diplomatic privilege and status and immunities and currently, that is not being implemented because of sanctions.

Ms Rita French:

I thank the Senator for her question. These initiatives - the UN80 reform initiative; the ACT initiative, which is enjoying the support of 120 countries in terms of not using a veto for mass atrocities; the France-Mexico veto initiative, which enjoys the support of 107 countries; or the recent International Court of Justice, ICJ, resolution, which enjoys the support of 141 countries - are all indications of the need for the UN to adapt and change. While Article 109 is by no means against those, actually, our efforts are complementary and go beyond that because all of these initiatives are constrained by the parameters of the existing system. They are necessary solutions we need to look for and continue to arrive at, but the root causes go deeper and beyond those. They cannot be taken forward through voluntary initiatives, and voluntary initiatives cannot be mandated. That is what is crucial. Once they can be mandated, they have a legal framework and the funding and resources can follow to enable that to act. This is why we think that an Article 109 review conference allows all of those initiatives to absolutely be tabled and formalised as well and even for other different ideas to emerge that cannot operate and emerge for a constrained system.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for touching on so many of the issues. I welcome the comments on special rapporteurs. I am thinking, of course, of Francesca Albanese, who has been so targeted in her vital work.

In terms of the current power under the uniting for peace mechanism, the witnesses are right to point out not just that it is quite a broad power that is there but also that for us specifically in Ireland, in terms of our own legislation, the mandate we give ourselves, because it is ultimately our own mandate, is very explicitly a mandate that can be a mandate from the General Assembly. The drafter of that legislation, the former Minister, Deputy O'Dea, has been explicitly clear that the General Assembly is a sufficient mandate. It is really an important piece in our own discussion. I worry sometimes that we get solely focused on that one aspect on UN reform and even though we may be not part of the egregious chipping away at it, by not using and stepping up to the mechanisms that are there, we could be doing more. As has been said, part of doing reform is exactly to stretch and use the powers that are there and then, if we get to their limits, we are clearer on what needs to actually change. That power and mechanism is being underused. What was pointed out in that list, which I was struck by, is that there are many instances where we can get a very large majority on the General Assembly. In a way, it is one of the great counterpoints. When people say the UN is failing and we need to move away from it, in another way, there is no other space. If we move away from it, we move deeper into the world of big powers of patronage that we have had for a long time. The witnesses might comment on that. For small countries, in particular, and for medium-sized countries, it is vital that there is a space whereby their voice and their vote carry an equal standing and that is the General Assembly. Then, the question is to use every power of the General Assembly strongly. It has shown it will give us that.

Each of the witnesses might comment on this. It has been said that Ireland is particularly well positioned to achieve that kind of thing in terms of a united peace agreement. Ireland is particularly well positioned as being a country that has a very good, strong relationship with many countries across the global south but also has that relationship with the European Union. Do the witnesses think Ireland is particularly well positioned in terms of stretching and using those General Assembly powers? They might comment on that.

Then, there is that question of the review, which is around trying to give more strength to the General Assembly in a general shifting of the balance. What extra strength would Ms French specifically like to see for the General Assembly? Where would she like to see it stronger? On the UN80 process, a lot of what we were told was that it is around the mandates shifting. I am a little nervous of mandates being lost. I look to, for example, the proposed merger of UN Women, the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, and the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA. There is the potential loss of some of the strong mandates because the UN is not just the Security Council. It is UNICEF; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, and our international legal system. Ms French might comment on that. Is there a danger, in a review of the charter, of any dilution? That is my only fear because it did come from that moment. I quote that first line a lot that it is to protect future generations from the scourge of war. It did come out of a moment of understanding. How do we protect that while reviewing and improving the processes?

Ms Rita French:

I will go first. I thank the Senator so much for those very important questions. First of all, I should say with respect to the UN General Assembly today, yes, it does have discretion in many of these resolutions to take those forward but what is very clear is that only the UN Security Council can mandate and has the legally binding mechanisms to deliver peacekeeping. Therefore, yes, it can deliver these resolutions and can condemn actions. It can have more civil solutions that are produced, but they are limited in their powers and, of course, they are non-binding and the funding cannot come from the regular budget. It is dependent, therefore, on voluntary funding so today it is constrained.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, there have been two of the UN blue helmet variety missions-----

Ms Rita French:

Exactly, but that is-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----that have been authorised through the General Assembly historically.

Ms Rita French:

They have been authorised but then funded through bilateral voluntary funding, not from the regular budget. That is a distinction I wanted to make in that space. Therefore, there is absolutely a role, as the Senator said. Actually, it was a very small nation that said to me that it can do everything by the book - it can follow all the rules in terms of trade and international law - but it cannot survive without the United Nations. It is the smaller and medium-sized countries that stand to lose the most if the UN is not working and operating well. It is, therefore, really important that we are assuring that the UN works for everyone, and the full membership of the UN but particularly the small and medium countries.

With respect to UN80 and the mandate reviews, again, that is not something I would necessarily offer a specific thought on, but it should not just be an efficiency exercise. That is the wrong way of doing things. It is really important that any organisation should regularly review its effectiveness in its operational space to respect the needs. That is an important part of the exercise, but what I would argue is that it is nowhere near sufficient to meet the challenges the UN is facing today.

The Senator asked a very important question around how the UN was set up to prevent the scourge of war and to prevent a third world war in that space. However, we are living in a world where those norms are being disregarded and international law is being disrespected and openly violated. It can be argued that there is a charter in place, but it is not operational and it is not effective. We can say that yes, this is important, but what I would say is that the core values and principles that exist in the UN Charter are values and principles that the majority of the nations support and follow and, indeed, their constitutions derive from as well. This is not about undoing all of that. It is really talking about enhancing the UN Charter and strengthening its capabilities to meet the modern needs of today as well. Do we fear that change? Do we fear that the charter could be weakened in some kind of guise? As I very much outlined at the beginning, the bar for change is the fact that a two thirds majority of the UN General Assembly is required, or the fact that any resistance to any kind of erosion would require 65 member states. I think that such coalitions exist. When you look at some of the very real threats and challenges that have happened in the multilateral system in terms of negotiations, those have been very marginal votes. They have never reached the 129 member states supporting that or, as I said, for other revisions.

I think we can be reassured that their legal safeguards are in place so that as we through go through the exercise, we will not end up with something that is weakened. I hope it is something that will be strengthened. I would say there is benefit in having this dialogue because it produces an inclusive, democratic process where every member state has its say and every member state has a vote. Therefore, it actually gives the decision-making power to the full General Assembly to determine rather than a handful of countries and that is a really important part of the process for which we are advocating.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would anyone like to add any further questions?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will follow up on that. I am reassured by that because I have just had that experience of seeing it in the Council with the status of women and others and the attempts to dilute previous progress. However, Ms French made a very good point that the review process will be one where the General Assembly would have a strengthened hand. I think it would make a mark. There is something to be said for these conversations. Even if the reform were to be blocked, it would set the agenda in terms of reform. I worry that we let those who are least interested in maintaining the power of the UN, and who are sometimes some of the quickest to say it is failing, lead those conversations when they are, in fact, failing or in some cases threatening it. Therefore, the conversation is important.

In terms of those resolutions, I know we may be frustrated. I recently attended a briefing on the Western Sahara, which has had resolutions for decades. There is frustration, indeed, on the Security Council where France blocked the human rights mandate for the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, MINURSO, on a number of occasions. There is a mission but without a human rights observation mandate. There is much that could be done, but those resolutions still matter. They matter intergenerationally because they mark our collective norm of what we expect in terms of how people are treated. I would like more of an answer or comment on that.

Ms French mentioned that one of the signs of hope was that a large vote that happened on climate, for example. She might comment on that climate process. The other piece she mentioned was that the resistance to the Board of Peace has been a sign in terms of that. She might perhaps comment because I noticed that in her example. The danger if we do not engage not just in multilateralism but in principles-based multilateralism, with that core point of equity in it, is of falling into an entirely interest-based multilateralism. Ms French might comment on that and maybe the importance of the European Union reaffirming its commitment to principles-based multilateralism and the instruments of international law. I worry that there seems to be a retreat into law for some and not for others or like-minded countries like-minding together versus that wider conversation. There is importance in that. I know that is a little bit abstract but it is trying to get to that core of why it is not just multilateralism, really, but it is the United Nations and what it means as something different. Could Ms French comment on those pieces?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Stephenson want to add anything before we go for a final wrap-up?

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would just note we have heard this increasing language around rupture and the end of the international order as we know it. Ireland and other countries have a responsibility to push away from that. It is very unhelpful to talk about a rupture of international law because it assumes that we cannot return to it. Rupture sounds very final. Yes, international law has been undermined to the point of it almost becoming meaningless, particularly in the context of Gaza, but that does not mean we should not be re-engaging in those areas. As a committee, certainly, it is something I would like us to consider in terms of engagement with the Department of foreign affairs and the Minister for foreign affairs around the EU Presidency but certainly ongoing. Ireland has this positive working relationship with many countries in the global south as a post-colonial country. Perhaps there is a unique opportunity given our relationships with various countries across the world to be a kind of leverage point on that, both when it comes to the invoking of the uniting for peace resolution as well as a commitment to a renewed charter.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am prompted by what my colleague said to ask another question. We focus a lot on the UN emerging after the Second World War and avoiding that great war again, but another thing it came out of was centuries of colonialism. One of the crucial shifts of the UN globally has been the idea of former colonised countries and former colonisers sitting side by side, the project of decolonisation and the decolonisation committee. Will Ms French comment on the importance of the UN reaffirming this aspect, which is perhaps more pertinent than ever when we apply the climate frame in terms of powers?

Ms Rita French:

I thank the Senators for their questions. The signals from the world are increasingly growing for a commitment to the UN even though there is recognition that the UN should change. When a number of countries rejected participation in the Board of Peace, particularly with its expanded mandate beyond Gaza which was enshrined through the UN Security Council, it was a very strong signal from nations saying they still believe in the UN system and multilateralism. This was very important. The ICJ ruling being translated in terms of member states fulfilling their obligations relating to harms to the environment is another signal of how important it is those processes outside the UN can be formalised to the UN system and the appetite and demand for that.

Senator Higgins mentioned the Commission on the Status of Women, CSW. The world we lived in for too long had a consensus approach to decision-making. In this geopolitical world, which is here to stay, and in this multipolar world, this will not always be the case. We have to accept that decisions will need to be taken through some form of majority. This is okay because sometimes consensus means we dilute ambition for what is required. Consensus also means we effectively give everyone a veto power and this goes against the majority of what we need. It is something we should look at overall.

A question was asked about values and principles and what they mean. Many will say, and the global south would say this very vocally, that they have said for too long the system is imperfect and has not worked for them or served their needs and that self-interest sometimes dictates. Perhaps we are in a world where values and principles matter, which are enshrined in the charter and upheld by many countries, but there is also a level of self-interest that exists. Whether or not nations publicly say it, there is always some element. For some it is more openly declared and for others it is less so. We need to have a system of governance that recognises we have to operate in a geopolitical decision-making environment and it is about how we ensure we take this forward.

Senator Stephenson asked about the rupture to international order. Many political leaders or other commentators have made it clear that the new world order and the rules-based system as we knew them are changing, and the old world order is coming to an end. The question for us today is whether we let it take shape in a de facto way, which is effectively happening through various initiatives, or we take some leadership to help shape it in a way that is inclusive and participatory and generally fulfils those values and principles that many hold dear. I would argue that Ireland should work on this.

Senator Stephenson is right about the language. What we see in the messaging coming out at the moment is that the UN is failing and it is all about efficiency and cuts. We are not communicating what the UN has been doing and continues to do. I say this collectively as a "we", including the UN, member states, civil society and others.

It is time to show the value the UN can bring and in what ways, and why it matters, particularly for delivering the global public goods that others cannot deliver. This is what the UN can do. We can have multilateralism at a regional level, such as the EU or the African Union. These are important bodies that did not exist in 1945. There are roles for them but we can recognise beyond these regional and subregional bodies there is still a need for the UN to set standards and norms and recognise that in some cases it is only through collective action and collective agreement we can progress and go forward. This is what we need to continue to argue for.

To respond to Senator Higgins on decolonisation, one of the biggest success stories of the UN has been the decolonisation agenda but we must remember that most of these countries were not part of designing the UN Charter we are discussing and debating today. I suspect it would be an important form of reparation to say to countries that they did not have an independent voice 81 years ago that we want to hear from them what they would like from the UN today to meet their needs. This would mean it is not just shaped by the handful of countries that shaped it 81 years ago.

It is about language and also about messaging. Too often the UN talks about donor recipients. This feels outdated as a mechanism and conversation. This is about everyone having an equal seat at the table and not whether they are big or small. Through a charter review conference we could change some of the narrative using constructive and positive language to give an aspiration and reaffirm what the UN should be about. Senator Higgins rightly said this could be done for areas where it does not exist, such as climate.

Article 109 is reform agnostic but some of our members have produced interesting ideas such as having a climate council. Recognising that climate decisions are fragmented, perhaps a climate council with scientific advisers, member states and other experts could push the boundaries for the standard we expect others to aspire to and deliver. We are facing an existential threat and many are asking for Governments to respond. This can only be addressed globally and collectively, and perhaps this can be worked on together.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms French for redirecting our attention from the negative and back to the huge volume of successes and positive stories there are around the world.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had a number of questions earlier but I did not have an opportunity to ask one of them. I suspect that in my absence it has been asked but I will ask it anyway as I went to the trouble of preparing it and I have come back.

It has been clear in latter times that the big powers have disregarded international law. The permanent members have been disregarding international law in various shapes and forms, with some very glaring and contemporary examples. With their veto they are able to block the Security Council from interfering in conflicts or interfering for the benefit of international law, peace and regulation. This is and has been a tragedy. This is not to negate the achievements of the UN, which Ms French is right to cite and which need to come into focus. At present the entire world's focus, if we did a vox pop outside a shopping centre insofar as people would answer, is to speak negatively of the UN, truthfully, for the reasons I have cited. Will it be regional bodies at local level, whether the EU, the African Union or whoever, that will determine and deal with local conflict? Is there any possibility of going back to a situation where the UN can be a positive intervening force given the way the main actors have been behaving? They have effectively flaunted all law and order internationally and vetoed any attempt to question it.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator O'Loughlin want to come in on this issue? We will take her question now.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that. I thank the witnesses for coming in. I apologise; we had the Order of Business in the Seanad at the same time. I ran down to my office to get my papers and listen to a little bit of this debate.

The issues being raised are very interesting and timely. Knowing a number of people who have worked for the UN, I think they would generally agree with some of the points being made. The fact that we have been well-served for a long number of years by the UN does not mean, in a changing world, that we cannot try to examine it and see how we can do work better. In the last number of years, certainly, the teeth seem to have gone from the UN in relation to a lot of the strife and war we see in the world. About three or four years ago, I had the opportunity to go to the UN with the Council of Europe in relation to the war of aggression against Ukraine. The lack of real interest by the UN in what was happening did concern me, so I think reform is most certainly needed.

I have one particular question. I just came in at the end of the contribution from Senator O'Reilly and my question might be close enough to his. In terms of the mandate for peacekeeping, we are very proud of this in Ireland. A debate on the triple lock is going on here now. Operation Irini has played an important role in enforcing the UN arms embargo on Libya and supporting maritime security and stability in the Mediterranean region. Those representing our country with distinction as peacekeepers took great pride in the work they were doing. The recent failure to renew that mandate, however, has once again highlighted the significant constraints imposed by the triple lock system. Obviously, there are concerns too about the continued work in Lebanon. That is going to cease relatively soon as well. In terms of the ongoing humanitarian missions that have been dependent on the powers of the UN, particularly the Security Council, if we want to be serious and maintain that level of support for those countries and regions that need it, then reform of the triple lock is absolutely necessary. I am interested in hearing the views of the witnesses on this matter.

Ms Chris Neill:

The Senator mentioned Operation Irini off the Libyan coast. She also correctly said it was not blocked by a veto; it was a non-renewal of a resolution. She also said that it was not imposed by the triple lock, but that the triple lock, basically, needs to be removed for us to send peacekeeping troops. That is incorrect. We can send peacekeeping troops through the UN General Assembly. We can send blue-helmeted, mandated peacekeeping troops through the UN General Assembly. Uniting for peace is the mechanism whereby, when the UN Security Council is deadlocked, failing to uphold peace and security and not carrying out its primary function and, as Ambassador Mythen stated, is in dereliction of its duties, we can then lean into the General Assembly to provide those mandates and recommendations. What we could do to bolster the General Assembly, as a reform, is to make those resolutions binding and enforceable, put timelines on them and ensure repercussions for the parties involved in a conflict for getting in the way of the peacekeeping mandate.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Ms Neill is telling me that even though that mandate has ceased, we can still send our Irish troops.

Ms Chris Neill:

We can create a mandate through the uniting for peace mechanism, vote it through the General Assembly and then, when the recommendation comes through, we can create a proposal that can be voted on.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be a different structure than has been used before.

Ms Chris Neill:

Yes, but it can be done. We do not need to dismantle the triple lock to send peacekeeping troops and blue-helmeted, mandated troops to regions of conflict or areas of crisis or humanitarian-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Actually, humanitarian action can be taken without any involvement of the UN General Assembly or Security Council -----

Ms Chris Neill:

Correct. It is under the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----under the Defence (Amendment) Act. For example, when we did our rescue missions, when we used to save 8,000 lives a year in the Mediterranean, that did not require a UN mandate. It was only when it moved to being a security mission, rather than a humanitarian mission, that a UN mandate was sought.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we get an answer to the question from Senator O'Reilly?

Ms Rita French:

Of course. The Senator is entirely right in terms of the disregard for international law. I do not think it is limited to just a handful of countries or the big powers. It has been violated and abused by a number of other countries too. This generic trend needs to be addressed. There needs to be more accountability when there are open breaches and violations, and enforcement. How do we raise the political price for those violations and in what kinds of ways? How do we give more teeth to the UN system to hold accountable those who do not uphold international law? How can we ensure it is scrutinised in a better way? This issue should be considered as part of future discussions in this space.

In terms of questions regarding regional bodies, many of these did not exist in 1945, when the world was very different from today. Regional bodies have a lot more influence, power and ability to deal with some of these issues and conflicts that exist. It is right to ask questions about the role of these regional bodies and where solutions for managing conflicts or humanitarian situations sit. Would it be at a subregional or a regional level? At what point would the UN need to operate? There needs to be a more sophisticated model than the one we are looking at today.

The UN system should be operating where others cannot. Rather than there being a premise that the UN needs to be everything and everywhere - this is perhaps the challenge we are facing today, in terms of there being 61 active conflicts around the world and it not being possible to address them - we need to think about where the UN adds the greatest value. In what spaces would this be, how could we ensure the organisation does those actions and how would we ensure other regional bodies are able to operate? This needs to be part of a broader conversation around that space.

Senator O'Loughlin set out clearly and strongly what the UN is facing today. This includes irrelevance, credibility issues, legitimacy issues and, crucially, issues of trust. All of those aspects need to be rebuilt. A future Secretary-General has an important role to ensure that we can bring the UN back to the table and centre stage in those most pressing and demanding areas. How do we do that to ensure the UN can still operate and deliver for the needs of today?

Turning to the specific questions around mandating and peacekeeping, I echo that there are flexibilities in the current system concerning introducing resolutions and commitments, but they do not have the same binding commitment that a UN Security resolution has. These approaches can deliver results, but they are very dependent on voluntary funding and other mechanisms enabling that to happen. Clearly, while discussion, debate and a decision on the triple lock are very much matters for the Parliament of Ireland and, of course, the people of Ireland, irrespective of the decision made, whether the triple lock is maintained or removed there is a need for the UN system to be strengthened. This could be to enhance the General Assembly, its powers and abilities, and give it greater power in those spaces and prevent those blockages in the UN Security Council, or, crucially, to ensure that any peacekeeping forces are protected or we reduce the number of conflicts and the number of humanitarian situations around the world.

The domestic debate that is happening here is important, but whatever the outcome, the need for UN reform and the scale that we are talking about is necessary.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will you clarify one thing for me? Are you saying that, insofar as the General Assembly can authorise a peacekeeping mission, if it is authorised by the General Assembly, it may not come with any funding attached, whereas if it comes via the Security Council, there is a guarantee of funding?

Ms Rita French:

Security Council resolutions are legally binding, and it is the only body in the UN system which has a legal ability to deliver those and it comes from the regular budget of the UN. Any peacekeeping force mandated through the UN Security Council has the funding available directly through that. That is not to say that you cannot deliver predominantly civilian missions around those spaces, but it requires voluntary contributions. The examples that have happened and those cases in the past have reflected on member states individually stepping up with their voluntary contributions to make that happen.

What is really interesting is that new models for peacekeeping sometimes emerge. Haiti is a good example of that, where the Gang Suppression Force is replacing the UN-mandated peacekeeping mission which has been operating since 2023. This is quite an interesting model because it has a UN Security Council resolution, so it is under the auspices of the UN in terms of accountability and legitimacy, particularly around logistics and administration, but the actual operational command sits with a coalition of willing countries. The funding does not come from the regular budget; it comes from a voluntary budget. These are the kind of creative solutions that are being found at the moment, I guess in part to reflect the challenges and the paralysis of the UN Security Council to better on peacekeeping given that it has not delivered any new peacekeeping mandates or resolutions since 2014.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank you for being with us and for being so forthright in dealing with the questions that we have posed to you. Without doubt, you have stimulated a greater degree of interest, and perhaps, and it is to be hoped, you have stimulated us to take up these issues in our two Houses and with our Government and political parties. As a result of the witnesses' presence here today, it is to be hoped Ireland's role in the Presidency for the next six months will include some focus on this area. With that in mind, and perhaps if the Chair were here and the agenda were to allow it, when the six months' Presidency has concluded, it might be a good time for you to come back and talk to us about these matters, because they will still be on the agenda at that stage, I daresay.

Ms Rita French:

Things will be more advanced and there will be some learning and reflections from Ireland's side in terms of what they want to bring to the table for this discussion.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you all very much. The committee is adjourned until 9 June 2026 at 3 p.m.