Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

Before dealing with the specific amendment I would like to make a general point with regard to the definitions aspect of the proposed legislation. Section 2 provides for the interpretation of key terms as defined in the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and other relevant terms. Many of the terms defined for the purposes of the Bill are agreed terms under both of those conventions. Their negotiation — the exact definitions of what constitutes cluster munitions in this case and anti-personnel mines in the case of the 1997 convention — was difficult and painstaking.

The exact reproduction of these terms in the domestic laws of the states that are parties to the convention is necessary in order to ensure that the obligations imposed by them are observed in a consistent manner. This is particularly true with regard to the definition section, particularly for the definitions of cluster munitions, an explosive bomblet, and anti-personnel mines. If different states or parties to the convention were to define these key definitions, which were the subject of intense negotiations, in their domestic laws and legislation in different ways, co-operation between the parties to the convention would become very complex and would, inevitably, frustrate the coherent implementation of the convention. This general point is irrespective of the merits or demerits of the definitions as they ultimately appear in the convention and now before us in the legislation.

The practical effect of amendments Nos. 2 and 5 would be to blur the distinction between anti-personnel mines on one hand and anti-tank mines equipped with anti-handling devices on the other. The first is prohibited by the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, of which the Senator will be aware, while the second is not. These amendments would have the effect of introducing an undesirable level of uncertainty concerning anti-tank mines equipped with anti-handling devices.

Senators will appreciate that the purpose of the Bill is to implement both conventions. Article 2 of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention specifically provides that mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle, as opposed to a person, and that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered in themselves anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped.

The provision that Senator Norris wishes to delete is reproduced in section 2(2) of the Bill. By applying different standards in our laws to those being adopted by other states that are party to the convention, we would risk severely complicating the international co-operation on the implementation of the convention. The proposed amendments would, effectively, prevent our Defence Forces from participating in peacekeeping and other similar missions with almost any other country, whether it is party to the convention, because we would be implementing a different standard of prohibition than they would.

That prohibition relates not just to the use of anti-personnel mines as defined, but to assisting any other country that might use them. If the definition differs from that agreed at the convention, other countries may use something that would be prohibited under Irish law, were I to accept the amendment, but permitted by the convention. As the overarching intention of the convention is to provide consistency of application in the field, I cannot accept the Senator's amendment.