Paul Murphy Questions Legal Power to Send Troops to Iraq
Paul Murphy asked whether, under the 2003 legal framework, an Irish government with a Dáil majority could have sent troops to Iraq or any other mission and stated he did not want future governments deploying forces in a "coalition of the willing" for imperialist invasions. He pressed officials on whether a UN General Assembly resolution satisfies the triple lock and on the rationale behind the 2006 Defence Amendment Act and the legal scope of the UN Charter in deployment legislation.
Murphy queried if the legal framework in place in 2003 would have allowed the government, given majority support in the Dáil, to send troops to Iraq or any other mission. He emphasised that, while other political and operational factors matter, he opposes future governments using such powers to join a "coalition of the willing" in what he described as imperialist invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan or other countries.
The minister confirmed that, under current law, a UN General Assembly resolution - though not legally binding - does satisfy the requirements of the "triple lock." Officials cautioned that the practical effectiveness of relying on a General Assembly resolution is questionable in modern practice. Murphy followed up on points raised by Deputy Gibney about that legal interpretation.
Officials said the 2006 Defence Amendment Act explicitly allowed the use of a UN General Assembly resolution because of concerns about the Security Council veto by permanent members. They noted the arguments used then are similar to those now cited in debates over changing the triple lock, and observed that the last comparable General Assembly use was in 1956 under very different circumstances.
Murphy probed whether references to the "principles of the UN Charter" in legislation would constrain deployments described as "strengthening international security" that are not traditional peacekeeping. The minister replied that legislation would adhere to principles of international law and the UN Charter and that "peacekeeping" can be a broad term covering many peace support operations, while acknowledging definitional and practical tensions when deploying on international security missions.
2003 legal framework and possible deployments
Murphy queried if the legal framework in place in 2003 would have allowed the government, given majority support in the Dáil, to send troops to Iraq or any other mission. He emphasised that, while other political and operational factors matter, he opposes future governments using such powers to join a "coalition of the willing" in what he described as imperialist invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan or other countries.
Triple lock and UN General Assembly
The minister confirmed that, under current law, a UN General Assembly resolution - though not legally binding - does satisfy the requirements of the "triple lock." Officials cautioned that the practical effectiveness of relying on a General Assembly resolution is questionable in modern practice. Murphy followed up on points raised by Deputy Gibney about that legal interpretation.
2006 Defence Amendment Act rationale
Officials said the 2006 Defence Amendment Act explicitly allowed the use of a UN General Assembly resolution because of concerns about the Security Council veto by permanent members. They noted the arguments used then are similar to those now cited in debates over changing the triple lock, and observed that the last comparable General Assembly use was in 1956 under very different circumstances.
UN Charter, international law and mission definitions
Murphy probed whether references to the "principles of the UN Charter" in legislation would constrain deployments described as "strengthening international security" that are not traditional peacekeeping. The minister replied that legislation would adhere to principles of international law and the UN Charter and that "peacekeeping" can be a broad term covering many peace support operations, while acknowledging definitional and practical tensions when deploying on international security missions.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Shay Brennan
Shay Brennan challenges value for money in infrastructure
Gerard P. Craughwell
Gerard P. Craughwell on Ward Report exoneration in Crotty case
Brian Stanley
Brian Stanley: Demands Faster Action on Decade-Long Flood Schemes
Rose Conway-Walsh
Rose Conway-Walsh urges amendment to secure updated SESI rates
Gerard P. Craughwell
Gerard P. Craughwell calls triple lock debate a 'complete red herring'
Joe O'Reilly
Joe O'Reilly demands arms embargo, calls events 'genocide'
Transcript
Just to ask, if this was the legal framework in place in 2003, could the Irish government, if it wanted to and had the support of a majority in the Dáil, have sent troops to Iraq? It would apply to any mission. You know, not to say Iraq is the focus. No, no, I'm asking, could they have sent troops to Iraq? If they so, if it was, if they so wanted to, if they so proposed to, if they were happy with the legal framework, if they were happy with the rules of engagement. So it's not just because they can do it, they would do it. There's lots of other factors around that, you know. And for me, that's, I don't want a future government to be able to send Irish troops abroad in a coalition of the willing in an imperialist invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan or any other country. I think that's the reason lots of people will oppose it. Secondly, to follow up on the questions of Deputy Gibney, just can you confirm that under the current legal framework, even though a UN General Assembly resolution is not legally binding, it does satisfy our requirements for the triple lock? It does. But how effective that is in practice is questionable. Were you in the department in 2006 when the legislation was changed? I was, but I wouldn't have been involved in it. Of course. Yeah, yeah. I mean, can you outline the rationale for that 2006 amendment? It was explicitly at the time, the arguments that are now being used to abolish the triple lock were used then to amend the defence, with the Defence Amendment Act. It explicitly was so that the UN General Assembly could be used because of the veto. It was dealing with the veto. I think that's legally provided for it, but the practice is very different, unfortunately. And again, we would have referred to this earlier. It was 1956, I think, was the last General Assembly when that was used. And a different environment and where you had the P5 on board. Okay. So the environment provided for it. And maybe finally, just in relation to this point about the principles of the UN Charter, I do think that's significant. It means Article 2 rather than the UN Charter as a whole. You said earlier that that's because it's about peacekeeping. Are you saying that the UN Charter does not then cover anything? We're not bound by the UN Charter if we're sending troops for, quote, strengthening international security? If we're sending troops to an international force, that part of the legislation, the principles of international law and the UN Charter... It's not principles of international law, it's principles of the UN Charter, sorry. Yeah, both, sorry, it would adhere to the principles of international law and the UN Charter. They will be embedded in the legislation. But that's just a reference. The other circumstances where we deploy troops overseas is not, you know, is in different circumstances. It's not an international force. Yes, but you earlier said it was there because it's about peacekeeping. But this provides for sending troops abroad not on peacekeeping missions, on international security missions. Yeah, and again, I would have spoken that sometimes the term peacekeeping is a generic term that covers a lot of peace support operations that our military undertake. I'm afraid we have to... Thank you.