Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Wallace for introducing this Bill. I have the honour of setting out the Government's position on it. This is the second time in three weeks that the House has debated a proposal to amend the Constitution by inserting provisions concerning military neutrality. I will focus on the broader issue of military neutrality before turning to the specific proposals in Deputy Wallace's Bill.

As has been stated in the House many times, including three weeks ago, the Government is committed to the long-standing policy of military neutrality, which enjoys widespread public support. The Government's commitment was publicly re-confirmed in the major statement of foreign policy priorities that it published in January, entitled "The Global Island: Ireland's Foreign Policy for a Changing World". The statement sets out a comprehensive series of policy priorities concerning Ireland's future in a rapidly changing world, including securing our nation's prosperity, active engagement in the EU, promoting peace and reconciliation on this island, engaging with our diaspora, providing travel documents and assistance for our citizens when travelling abroad and promoting our values. It is on this last point that I wish to focus.

As the statement makes clear, "Article 29 of the Constitution sets out the principles that guide Ireland's conduct of its international relations". These principles include "the ideals of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations" and "the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes". It further confirms that our foreign policy is deeply anchored in the values set out in the Constitution. The statement reconfirms that our policy of military neutrality remains a core element of Irish foreign policy. In line with this policy, we are not members of any military alliance and have no plans to join any. However, military neutrality does not mean that we take an insular view or isolate ourselves from the world. We are conscious of our duty and responsibility to do what we can to prevent and alleviate the suffering of others. In line with the Constitution, we take seriously our obligation to work towards the pacific settlement of international disputes. Moreover, our export-oriented economy relies on a stable rules-based international system for the trade, investment and tourism flows on which the prosperity of our people depends. The Government, therefore, believes in active global engagement and in contributing to international efforts to secure similar peace and prosperity in other parts of this interconnected world. We do this through policies aimed at combating poverty and hunger, principally through the Government's Irish Aid programme; advancing human rights; promoting disarmament; and working through the UN, the EU and with our international partners to promote international peace and stability.

The contribution made by Irish troops to peacekeeping missions is at the heart of our strategy. Thousands of men and women have made an invaluable contribution to keeping the peace in countries ravaged by years of conflict.

Our troops have a distinguished track record and a well-deserved international reputation earned over many decades. To meet the growing demand for peace operations, the UN has increasingly turned to regional organisations such as the EU, the African Union and NATO to manage operations on its behalf and under its authority. Ireland has actively contributed to the shaping of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, which equips the Union to take on crisis management operations outside the EU in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter.

The operation of the CSDP is entirely consistent with Irish foreign policy traditions and principles. It is guided by a comprehensive approach which seeks to tackle the underlying causes as well as the manifestations of conflict. The EU now has a wide range of competences equipping it to make a significant contribution to peace support operations by drawing on a mix of economic development, trade, mediation, rule of law and peace support instruments. The EU has deployed more than 30 military and civilian operations since 2002. Members of the Defence Forces have participated in some of these missions. However, the majority of missions are civilian in nature and involve the deployment of police officers and civilian experts.

These EU missions are externally focused and designed to contribute to international peace and security. They are not related to internal EU security or territorial defence. They rely on contributions made by the sovereign decisions of individual member states. In Ireland's case, Defence Forces deployments are, and will continue to be, governed by the triple lock mechanism which is set out in legislation.

Lest there be any lingering concerns arising from recent comments in the course of an interview by the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jean Claude Juncker, I want to make clear that there is no European army, nor is there any basis for one. The protocol on the concerns of the Irish people to the Treaty of Lisbon, which is annexed to the Treaty on the European Union, makes clear that the treaty does not affect or prejudice our military neutrality. The protocol also states that the treaty does not provide for the creation of a European army. The treaty itself states that there will be no common defence unless the European Council unanimously so decides and Article 29.4.9 prohibits Irish participation in such a common defence.

Before turning to the Bill proposed by Deputy Wallace, I want to refer briefly to the issue of the use of Shannon Airport by the US. This is a long-standing practice which has been in place for over 50 years. We have never withdrawn or suspended the use of facilities at Shannon at any stage during that period. Ireland has not entered into a military alliance with the US or with any other country or organisation. Permitting the use of Shannon by the US does not challenge this position in any way and successive Governments have considered that this is compatible with our policy of military neutrality.

Let me turn to the Bill proposed by Deputy Wallace. The Bill proposes that the Constitution should be amended to require adherence to the provisions of the 1907 Hague Convention (V), respecting the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in case of war on land. I will quote the exact Schedule proposed to be inserted into the Constitution:

Ireland’s neutral status shall be affirmed by adherence to the provisions of the 1907 Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land.

As Deputy Wallace will be aware, this was one of 13 conventions adopted on 18 October 1907 at the conclusion of the second Hague Peace Conference. The convention was a product of a historical context which concerned the sovereign right of states to wage war. This right had for centuries been regarded as a legitimate instrument of a state's national policy. The law of neutrality represented a logical accompaniment to the sovereign right of states to wage war. In other words, states which did not wish to be considered as participants in a war had the legal right to insist on respect for their rights as neutral parties and as neutral parties had to comply with certain legal obligations under the convention.

However, just two decades later, the right to wage war was relinquished by practically all states under the 1928 General Treaty for the Renunciation of War. William T. Cosgrave, acting on behalf of the then Irish Free State, was among the original signatories to the treaty which declared that the contracting parties condemn recourse to war and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another. The treaty further stated that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be shall never be sought except by pacific means.

The prohibition on war was reinforced with the adoption in 1945 of the Charter of the United Nations. Article 2(3) of the charter requires all members to settle their disputes by peaceful means. Under Article 2(4), UN members "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any states, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." Whereas the 1907 convention was designed to allow neutral states to stay out of a war, it has largely been superseded by the Charter of the United Nations which sets out a framework of internationally accepted principles concerning collective security. The old distinction between belligerents and neutrals is no longer relevant as war is prohibited by international law.

Under the UN Charter the use of force is permitted only in individual or collective self defence or where authorised by the Security Council in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Where the Security Council authorises measures, including military action, to restore international peace and security, member states not participating in those measures are nevertheless obliged under Article 2(5) to "give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes" in accordance with the Charter. UN member states may also be required to implement sanctions imposed by the Security Council against a state. Thus it may no longer be possible for a UN member state to remain neutral in the manner prescribed by the 1907 convention.

Furthermore, the 1907 convention applies to the waging of war, which is an armed conflict between states, but it does not apply to conflicts within a state or to conflict between states and non-state actors which represent the vast majority of modern armed conflicts. It refers to the passage of troops over land or by sea, but because it is a product of its time it makes no reference to modern modes of transport, including air travel, or to new developments in technology.

The 1907 Hague Convention should be regarded as a product of its time. Just 33 countries are state parties to the convention, with just two of these ratifying the convention after the 1928 general treaty came into force, which were Ethiopia in 1935 and Belarus in 1962. Ireland fully subscribes to the provisions of the 1928 general treaty and the UN Charter. The Government sees little point in ratifying a convention which has its roots in a right to wage war which, as I have outlined, is now prohibited by international law. With the adoption of the UN Charter, it is far from clear how it applies in the modern world.

The case for ratifying the convention is weak, but the case for including a reference to it in the Constitution, to bind the State by its provisions, is weaker still. Three weeks ago, the Government rejected the case for inserting provisions on neutrality into the Constitution. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, noted that the objectives of the Private Members' Bill proposed by Deputy Seán Crowe were well intentioned but that to insert those provisions into the Constitution was neither necessary nor desirable. Those arguments apply equally to this Bill.

As I said in my opening remarks, there has been a long-standing commitment by successive Governments to the policy of military neutrality. This Government remains fully committed to this policy and has re­affirmed the commitment in the global island policy. Article 29(2) of the Constitution confirms Ireland's adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes and it prohibits participation in any EU common defence. Ireland's policy on military neutrality was acknowledged and protected in the legal guarantees obtained in the context of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

In addition to all these important provisions, the conditions which must be satisfied to permit Irish participation in overseas military operations are set out in legislation under the triple lock mechanism. In view of these provisions, the Government does not consider that a constitutional provision on neutrality is required. I would be concerned about the potential implications of a constitutional provision that requires the State to act in keeping with a convention which has in large measure been overtaken by developments in international law and which may even be inconsistent with the UN Charter. I do not think that this House would wish Ireland to find itself in a position where it must refuse to take part in a UN-mandated peace operation or must refuse to implement sanctions approved by the Security Council because the Constitution had been amended in such a way that we had to act in the manner in which a neutral state would have done at a time of war in 1907.

I do not believe that this House would support a provision which potentially might tie the Government's hands and prevent it from taking a public position on incidents of gross violations of human rights or the commission of war crimes that may occur during a conflict because it is required under the Constitution to adhere to a strictly neutral position as set out in the Hague Convention.

The world has moved on since 1907. We no longer live in an era of belligerents adhering to an outmoded law on the right to wage war. We live in the modern world, a world in which we and most other states regard the United Nations as the forum within which disputes should be settled, and the UN Charter as the set of principles to which all states should adhere. We must look to the future and it is on that basis that the Government is not accepting the Bill.

See this speech in context