Neale Richmond (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

At the risk of accusations I would like to briefly welcome the Minister of State to the House. As convenor of the French-Irish friendship group I would like to echo his welcome to the delegation from the French National Assembly.

I have a couple of points which are specifically relevant to section 3. I welcome Senator Black's comments when she said this was about a wider issue, and her deliberate reference to Western Sahara is of course welcome. I am concerned about other disputed regions which are quite obvious but affected by various roles within the International Criminal Court. The Bill's reference to "an international tribunal" is vague. I do not know how that could apply. Another area of concern is the will of the Minister. This could depend on the Government of the day. Does the Government breach international rulings to determine what is a conflict area?

A problem arises in subsection (2), which refers to "all territories". The easiest way to discuss this is to give a practical example. It was very obvious on the front page of The Irish Times yesterday. I refer to the Odessa region in Ukraine. We cannot get a combined ruling of the United Nations Security Council because of the constant fear of a Russian veto. This brings up the question of disputed territory. What is an occupied territory? While I do not want to take away from the meaning and potential benefits of this Bill, I have a concern that it is open to abuse and there is a vagueness in that subsection. I would really appreciate if the Minister of State could outline whether this is watertight enough for the Government to stand over in its interpretation of what exactly an occupied territory is. Yesterday's occupied territory might be a liberated nation. Tomorrow's liberated nation might become an occupied territory. It is something on which I would like clarity. I do not necessarily oppose or reject it but under a reading of international law it could be open to abuse by future Governments.