Dáil debates
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Bill 2008: Report and Final Stages
4:00 pm
Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, line 36, after "Schedule 1", to insert the following:
", but Article 21(3) of the said Convention may not be relied on by the State".
On Committee Stage the Minister, in relation to amendment No. 7, made a helpful statement by way of clarification as regards the circumstances that would govern co-operation between Irish and other forces. My reason for retaining the amendment, however, was my concern that the protection in place referred to criminality liability on the part of a serving officer. To some extent, it did not address the fundamental issue as to whether such munitions should be used in the first place. The question of the strength of an assurance then arose as regards a co-operating force involved in a shared action and the degree to which one should ask such a question. It is interesting because, without upsetting too many people, I am convinced by the international legal opinion that is so overwhelming as regards another matter, namely, the inadequacy of international assurances in relation to compliance, say, in the UN convention against torture. That is my view for consideration on another day, but in exactly the same manner I am thinking about the discourse that should govern those co-operating in a particular situation as to what assurances should be sought and given from one side or another. The Minister went a considerable way on Committee Stage in acknowledging what was, in fact, the substance of amendment No. 7. It is less so in the case of amendment No. 4. I am interested in his reply.
No comments