Micheál Martin, the Tánaiste, has repeated the Irish Government’s stance that a proposed law designed to prohibit imports from unlawful Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian lands would violate European Union regulations. This assertion was reaffirmed amidst queries by Christian Aid, a humanitarian group, and the Labour Party about a potential shift in the Government’s perspective following Ireland’s latest input in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case regarding Israel’s activity and policies in the occupied regions.
The 2018 Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill was initially proposed by Independent Senator Frances Black. However, the Government has long claimed that it cannot be executed, maintaining that trade is under EU jurisdiction.
In February, Ireland’s Attorney General, Rossa Fanning, stated to the ICJ that not only must nations avoid providing aid or support for the predicament created by Israel’s violation of Palestinians’ right to independence, but they must also scrutinise their trade ties with settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) in the context of their duties to international organisations (like the EU for Ireland) with external trading authority.
Christian Aid’s policy chief, Conor O’Neill, referred to Mr Fanning’s statement when conversing with the Labour party, interpreting it as the Government stating there is a predicament between international legal duties (to halt trade promptly) and EU duties (not to halt trade unilaterally), and opting for the latter.
Ivana Bacik, the Labour party leader, argued that the Attorney General’s February remarks emphasised the untenability of the Government’s continued reliance on his earlier advice as a means of thwarting the Occupied Territories Bill.
A spokesperson from the Department of Foreign Affairs stated that Tánaiste Micheál Martin had addressed the Occupied Territories Bill in the Dáil, in response to a question raised by Ms Bacik. Mr Martin’s response highlighted that Ireland’s ICJ submission had found multiple violations of international law due to settlement activities, which have been used to annex Palestinian territory and curtail the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.
Furthermore, Mr Martin emphasised that states and organisations such as the EU – possessing the legal capacity to manage trade with third countries – should review their commercial tie-ups with these settlements. He elaborated, stating that the responsibility for international trade policies rests solely with the EU. Currently, the EU has differentiated trade with Israel and the settlements, a policy that does not prohibit settlement goods imports but does prevent these importations from receiving preferential treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement.
Stating that he anticipates the Court to deliver its Advisory Opinion in the near future, Mr Martin claimed that any necessary further action at the EU level will be considered post-release of this opinion. He added that the unambiguous legal advice attested their current bill to be incompatible with EU law.