Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

2. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further to Parliamentary Question No. 238 of 1 April 2025, the basis upon which there is a requirement to prioritise those measures which least disturb the functioning of the EU Israel Association agreement, in light of suspension being on the grounds that Israel being in serious and persistent violation of the requirement to respect human rights as an essential element of the Association Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17672/25]

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I refer the Deputy to my answer to Parliamentary Question No. 238 of 1 April 2025 and by way of further clarification draw the Deputy’s attention to Article 79 (2) of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

3. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further to Parliamentary Question No. 238 of 1 April 2025, if he will outline Ireland's obligations as clarified by the International Court of Justice in its recent advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17674/25]

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

5. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further to Parliamentary Question No. 130 of 1 April 2025, the length of time it will take him to prepare carefully and consider the full range of issues involved regarding the enaction of legislation giving effect to the rulings of the International Court of Justice regarding the trade of goods and services with illegal Israeli settlements; if he is still of the opinion that such legislation will be passed within the first year of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17673/25]

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 5 together.

On 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.

The Court’s principal conclusion was that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory was unlawful and that it must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible. The Court also identified a range of legal obligations for all states arising from that situation. These include a duty not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. In particular, the Court stated that all states have a duty to distinguish in dealings with Israel between its own territory and the occupied Palestinian territory.

The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, while not in itself legally binding, represents an authoritative statement of applicable international law, which is binding on all states and international organisations, including the EU and its Member States.

Ireland co-sponsored a resolution, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 September 2024, which seeks to implement the court's Advisory Opinion. The resolution elaborates on the obligations arising for Israel, for all states and for international organisations arising from Israel's unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory.

My Department is continuing its follow-up to the Advisory Opinion, including through pressing for action at EU level.

The Programme for Government sets out a commitment to progress legislation prohibiting goods from the occupied Palestinian territory. As the Deputy will recall, the Government carried out an extensive analysis and review of the Occupied Territories Bill late last year. The Government’s analysis was that substantive amendments would be required to most, if not all, of the Bill’s provisions in order to bring it in line with the Constitution and to try to reduce the risk of EU infringement procedures.

These considerations remain central to the Government’s approach. It is important to take the time to consider the full range of issues involved before moving forward.