Reflections on Irish Neutrality

national | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis Tuesday February 21, 2006 16:32 by michael

"Commentators might quite correctly point to the hypocrisy of a state proclaiming neutrality, and yet engaging in activities which do not appear to be on all fours with such proclamation." -- Ms. Justice Macken ('Dubsky v. Ireland' Conclusions)

Discussing Irish neutrality is difficult, not because of the meaning of the second word, but because of the double-meaning of the first. The Oxford English Dictionary says it could be either (1) relating to Ireland or Irish, or (2) illogical or apparently so.

Neutrality is a well established part of international law. Like most other international law, it doesn't change whether you are talking about Ireland or Germany, or South Africa or Cuba, or any other state. We must apply (at least) the same standards to ourselves as we do to others. And if we accept that golden rule, then "Irish Neutrality" translates to mean "Ireland enforcing its rights and duties as a neutral power". It arises when there is a war and Ireland isn't on the attacking or receiving end.

If we are not a neutral power, then we are one of the belligerents. As a belligerent we would still have special rights and duties, and they wouldn't change under international law if we added "Irish" here or there.

Being a neutral power during a time of war hasn't changed much since 1907 when the Hague Conventions on the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War were first signed. Those guidelines form part of customary international law now, and say that you should arrest belligerents who try to pass through your territory to war.

Judge Macken is due to decide on costs this Wednesday, for the Judicial Review proceedings I took against the Irish Government over the Afghanistan war. She ruled in favour of the government on all counts in her High Court judgement on December 13th, 2005.

The war in Afghanistan wasn't a war, even if you call it that. It wasn't a war, even if the armed forces of the most powerful states all descended upon that forlorn place, blowing up whatever they could, and arming whatever warlord would fight. The Irish Constitution says war, but this wasn't one. It wasn't an armed conflict, because wars aren't armed conflicts. So says the judge anyway.