lostexpectation wrote:

that a case that Ireland is in breach of Article 2 of the Hague Convention on the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers would probably succeed

was that not the what the horgan case was about who said it was only aspirational, isn't that what we're all talking about?


so when do we,when could we breach our neutrality?

The problem is that there are at least a couple of ways of looking at this:

Ireland is a neutral country in (flagrant/actual/potential) breach of Article 2:
1. and this means we are no longer neutral
2. and this is important
3. and this is not that important

A lot of people argue for interpretation (1), which I would consider over-dramatic. It is possible for a solicitor to be in breach of his/her duties, but unless he/she is struck off, he/she remains a solicitor. Unless Ireland is "struck off" by being no longer internationally recognised as neutral, we remain neutral.

lostexpectation wrote:

so when do we,when could we breach our neutrality?

The only way that we could violate our neutrality policy, so far as I can see, would be if we were to invade another country without provocation. Everything else is allowed. Of course that would also violate our constitution where it says that war shall not be declared, unless we applied a US-style interpretation and invaded without a declararion of war.

Can someone remind me, did our Govt. even make a statement of disapproval of Chineese activities in Tibet in these past few months ?

Did we ever formally support a UN resolution, even morally support one ?

Hermes wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

so when do we,when could we breach our neutrality?

The only way that we could violate our neutrality policy, so far as I can see, would be if we were to invade another country without provocation. Everything else is allowed. Of course that would also violate our constitution where it says that war shall not be declared, unless we applied a US-style interpretation and invade without a declararion of war.

I'm pretty certain there's no constitutional bar on declaring war! The actual clause is:

1° War shall not be declared and the State shall
not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.

(my italics).

ibis wrote:

Hermes wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

so when do we,when could we breach our neutrality?

The only way that we could violate our neutrality policy, so far as I can see, would be if we were to invade another country without provocation. Everything else is allowed. Of course that would also violate our constitution where it says that war shall not be declared, unless we applied a US-style interpretation and invade without a declararion of war.

I'm pretty certain there's no constitutional bar on declaring war! The actual clause is:

1° War shall not be declared and the State shall
not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.

(my italics).

Fairly ambiguous though. I think I need to check the Irish version. What's the article number?

ibis wrote:

Hermes wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

so when do we,when could we breach our neutrality?

The only way that we could violate our neutrality policy, so far as I can see, would be if we were to invade another country without provocation. Everything else is allowed. Of course that would also violate our constitution where it says that war shall not be declared, unless we applied a US-style interpretation and invade without a declararion of war.

I'm pretty certain there's no constitutional bar on declaring war! The actual clause is:

1° War shall not be declared and the State shall
not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.

(my italics).

Thankfully that has never needed to be clarified by our courts. I was comparing the US making war without congress having made the declaration of war rather than saying that we cannot declare war. Now that you bring it up though, it is somewhat ambiguous. Take the sentence, "I cannot drink beer and I cannot participate in any beer drinking session without money." There's only a vague implication in this sentence that I could drink beer if I had money.

Ní dleathach cogadh a fhógairt ná páirt a bheith ag an Stát in aon chogadh ach amháin le haontú Dháil Éireann.

It is not legal to declare war nor for the state to be a part of any war except with the agreement of Dáil Éireann.

Yep, slightly clearer now. I believe it is clearer that the last clause covers the first two options, and not just the second.

Otherwise I would expect:

Ní dleathach cogadh a fhógairt is ní dleathach páirt a bheith ag an stát in aon chogadh ach amháin le haontú Dháil Éireann.

Hermes wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

so when do we,when could we breach our neutrality?

The only way that we could violate our neutrality policy, so far as I can see, would be if we were to invade another country without provocation. Everything else is allowed. Of course that would also violate our constitution where it says that war shall not be declared, unless we applied a US-style interpretation and invaded without a declararion of war.

In what way did Afghanistan provoke us?

cactus flower wrote:

Hermes wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

so when do we,when could we breach our neutrality?

The only way that we could violate our neutrality policy, so far as I can see, would be if we were to invade another country without provocation. Everything else is allowed. Of course that would also violate our constitution where it says that war shall not be declared, unless we applied a US-style interpretation and invaded without a declararion of war.

In what way did Afghanistan provoke us?

I don't quite get what you're asking here Cactus. Afghanistan didn't provoke us, neither did they provoke the US imo.

riadach wrote:

ibis wrote:

Hermes wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

so when do we,when could we breach our neutrality?

The only way that we could violate our neutrality policy, so far as I can see, would be if we were to invade another country without provocation. Everything else is allowed. Of course that would also violate our constitution where it says that war shall not be declared, unless we applied a US-style interpretation and invade without a declararion of war.

I'm pretty certain there's no constitutional bar on declaring war! The actual clause is:

1° War shall not be declared and the State shall
not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.

(my italics).

Fairly ambiguous though. I think I need to check the Irish version. What's the article number?

The Article is 28.3.1

I don't think it's ambiguous at all. It states exactly what it means - that only the Dáil can declare war, or agree to participate in any war. It also excludes the loophole that the US are using, because Ireland cannot participate in any war without the assent of the Dáil either.

riadach wrote:

Ní dleathach cogadh a fhógairt ná páirt a bheith ag an Stát in aon chogadh ach amháin le haontú Dháil Éireann.

It is not legal to declare war nor for the state to be a part of any war except with the agreement of Dáil Éireann.

Yep, slightly clearer now. I believe it is clearer that the last clause covers the first two options, and not just the second.

Otherwise I would expect:

Ní dleathach cogadh a fhógairt is ní dleathach páirt a bheith ag an stát in aon chogadh ach amháin le haontú Dháil Éireann.

Ah, that's where you thought the ambiguity was? I wouldn't have even considered it. Still...it puts a little crimp in the claim that our Constitution is utterly unambiguous - unlike that naughty Lisbon Treaty.

By the way, is there any chance of you checking the Irish version of the consolidated Treaty for me?

ibis wrote:

riadach wrote:

Ní dleathach cogadh a fhógairt ná páirt a bheith ag an Stát in aon chogadh ach amháin le haontú Dháil Éireann.

It is not legal to declare war nor for the state to be a part of any war except with the agreement of Dáil Éireann.

Yep, slightly clearer now. I believe it is clearer that the last clause covers the first two options, and not just the second.

Otherwise I would expect:

Ní dleathach cogadh a fhógairt is ní dleathach páirt a bheith ag an stát in aon chogadh ach amháin le haontú Dháil Éireann.

Ah, that's where you thought the ambiguity was? I wouldn't have even considered it. Still...it puts a little crimp in the claim that our Constitution is utterly unambiguous - unlike that naughty Lisbon Treaty.

By the way, is there any chance of you checking the Irish version of the consolidated Treaty for me?

Sure no problem. Any particular article you wish me to review? Legalese in Irish is fairly thick stuff.

The Irish Times has a Lisbon Treaty-themed neutrality article today. Food for thought.

16,000th post, yay!

Hermes wrote:

ibis wrote:

Hermes wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

so when do we,when could we breach our neutrality?

The only way that we could violate our neutrality policy, so far as I can see, would be if we were to invade another country without provocation. Everything else is allowed. Of course that would also violate our constitution where it says that war shall not be declared, unless we applied a US-style interpretation and invade without a declararion of war.

I'm pretty certain there's no constitutional bar on declaring war! The actual clause is:

1° War shall not be declared and the State shall
not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.

(my italics).

Thankfully that has never needed to be clarified by our courts. I was comparing the US making war without congress having made the declaration of war rather than saying that we cannot declare war. Now that you bring it up though, it is somewhat ambiguous. Take the sentence, "I cannot drink beer and I cannot participate in any beer drinking session without money." There's only a vague implication in this sentence that I could drink beer if I had money.

Well after reading the Horgan judgement and the Constitution, it is clear that the Constitution does not require Ireland to be neutral and that letting Shannon be used for transfer of troops and munitions is not a neutral act. It is up to Government to decide what to do on a case by case basis. Neutrality is not a matter of policy in international law, it is a matter of practice. Ireland is not neutral any more than Dustin is going to win the Eurovision.

In 1999 Ireland joined the Partnership for Peace.
http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-ireland/index.html

Ireland used to have law preventing troop and arms transit through Shannon but that was done away with in 2001.

In 2006 Ireland joined the EU Nordic battlegroup that may take action without UN approval. Ireland can make its own policy in relation to participation e.g. may require that an action is UN mandated.

Ireland is part of the originally NATO led ISAF operation in Afghanistan, and is with the EUFOR 'peace enforcing' force in Chad.

There is a clear drift both in legislation and in practice towards joining in military actions.

Quote :

Neutrality is not a matter of policy in international law, it is a matter of practice.

No, neutrality is a matter of acceptance. As long as we're accepted as neutral by the international community, we're neutral. We are therefore expected to fulfill the duties of a neutral country. If we're not neutral, we're free to let the US run their entire war machine through Shannon - if we are neutral, we shouldn't, but we can as long as nobody sanctions us as a result.

Some definitions:

A neutral country takes no side in a war between other parties, and in return hopes to avoid being attacked by either of them.

A neutralist policy aims at neutrality in case of an armed conflict that could involve the party in question. A neutralist is an advocate of neutrality in international affairs.

The concept of neutrality in conflicts must be distinguished from that of non-alignment, i.e. the willful desistence from military alliances in order to preserve neutrality in case of war, and perhaps with the hope of preventing a war altogether.

Non-alignment - Military alliance

The concept of neutrality in war is narrowly defined and puts specific constraints on the neutral party in return for the internationally recognized right to remain neutral. A wider concept is that of nonbelligerence. The basic international laws covering neutral territories is the Second Hague Convention.

A country that reserves the right to become a belligerent if attacked by a party to the war is in a condition of armed neutrality.

Some neutral countries include:

Switzerland - self-imposed, permanent, and armed, designed to ensure external security.
Austria - to maintain external independence and inviolability of borders (expressly modeled after the Swiss neutrality).
Turkmenistan - declared its permanent neutrality and had it formally recognized by the U.N.
Laos - the International Agreement on the Neutrality of Laos was signed in Geneva on July 23, 1962 by 14 nations, including the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
Other countries may be more active on the international stage, while emphasizing an intention to remain neutral in case of war close to the country. By such a declaration of intentions, the country hopes that all belligerents will count on the country's territory as off limits for the enemy, and hence unnecessary to waste resources on.

Many countries made such declarations during World War II. Most became, however, occupied, and in the end only Ireland, San Marino, Sweden and Switzerland (with Liechtenstein) remained neutral of the European countries closest to the war. Their fulfillment to the letter of the rules of neutrality have been questioned: Ireland supplied some important secret information to the Allies; for instance, the date of D-Day was decided on the basis of incoming Atlantic weather information secretly supplied to them by Ireland but kept from Germany. Sweden and Switzerland, as embedded within Nazi Germany and her associates, similarly made some concessions to Nazi requests.

Spiritus-temporis.com

CF wrote:

Well after reading the Horgan judgement and the Constitution, it is
clear that the Constitution does not require Ireland to be neutral and
that letting Shannon be used for transfer of troops and munitions is
not a neutral act. It is up to Government to decide what to do on a
case by case basis. Neutrality is not a matter of policy in
international law, it is a matter of practice. Ireland is not neutral
any more than Dustin is going to win the Eurovision.

In 1999 Ireland joined the Partnership for Peace.
http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-ireland/index.html

Ireland used to have law preventing troop and arms transit through Shannon but that was done away with in 2001.

In
2006 Ireland joined the EU Nordic battlegroup that may take action
without UN approval. Ireland can make its own policy in relation to
participation e.g. may require that an action is UN mandated.

Ireland
joined is part of the originally NATO led ISAF operation in
Afghanistan, and is with the EUFOR 'peace enforcing' force in Chad.

There is a clear drift both in legislation and in practice towards joining in military actions.

I don't mean to sound condescending when I say that I wish to Christ that our population at large could come to the same rationalisation. I wish this thread would appear in our schools, universities and media outlets so that folks could come to informed opinions on Ireland's alleged neutrality. It's no bloody easy task.

There are some very politically informed and savvy folks wandering the halls of Machine Nation - how do we open this topic up for national examination? I (and indeed many others, most of them smarter than I) have been trying, without so much as a shred of success. The mainstream media is the biggest impediment. There's a divide between persuasion by reasoned argument and indoctrination via propaganda. The media always reverse reality with regard to this topic - I'm unsure if it's intentional. Those of us on the left are accused of being the propagandists and the government et al are labeled the persuasive and reasoned ones.

Okay, I'm venting, I'll shut up now.

We can but try Hermes.

Gaybo has got the general point. That's a start.

cactus flower wrote:

Some definitions:

A neutral country takes no side in a war between other parties, and in return hopes to avoid being attacked by either of them.

A neutralist policy aims at neutrality in case of an armed conflict that could involve the party in question. A neutralist is an advocate of neutrality in international affairs.

The concept of neutrality in conflicts must be distinguished from that of non-alignment, i.e. the willful desistence from military alliances in order to preserve neutrality in case of war, and perhaps with the hope of preventing a war altogether.

Non-alignment - Military alliance

The concept of neutrality in war is narrowly defined and puts specific constraints on the neutral party in return for the internationally recognized right to remain neutral. A wider concept is that of nonbelligerence. The basic international laws covering neutral territories is the Second Hague Convention.

A country that reserves the right to become a belligerent if attacked by a party to the war is in a condition of armed neutrality.

So, variously, we would be neutralist, non-aligned, and non-belligerent, those being the ones that apply outside wartime?

I've started another thread that asks whether neutrality is enshrined in the constitution over here.

cactus flower wrote:

In 1999 Ireland joined the Partnership for Peace.
http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-ireland/index.html

Ireland used to have law preventing troop and arms transit through Shannon but that was done away with in 2001.

In 2006 Ireland joined the EU Nordic battlegroup that may take action without UN approval. Ireland can make its own policy in relation to participation e.g. may require that an action is UN mandated.

the 'partnership for war' you mean

we did, what law? D Ahern keeps saying of shannon we've been doing this for 50 years....


as i said elsewhere

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0521/1211310192521.html

a half page on ireland position on military and neutrality and he doesn't mention shannon, come mr costello our neutrality is craven farce

we're only spreading peace by fairy dust around the world accodring to costello.

lostexpectation wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

In 1999 Ireland joined the Partnership for Peace.
http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-ireland/index.html

Ireland used to have law preventing troop and arms transit through Shannon but that was done away with in 2001.

In 2006 Ireland joined the EU Nordic battlegroup that may take action without UN approval. Ireland can make its own policy in relation to participation e.g. may require that an action is UN mandated.

the 'partnership for war' you mean

we did, what law? D Ahern keeps saying of shannon we've been doing this for 50 years....


as i said elsewhere

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0521/1211310192521.html

a half page on ireland position on military and neutrality and he doesn't mention shannon, come mr costello our neutrality is craven farce

we're only spreading peace by fairy dust around the world accodring to costello.

Quote :

While most neutral states do not allow any foreign military within their territory, Ireland has a long history of allowing military aircraft of various nations to refuel at Shannon Airport. Under the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, exceptionally, could grant permission to foreign military aircraft to overfly or land in the State. Confirmation was required that the aircraft in question be unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and that the flights in question would not form part of military exercises or operations.
In September 2001 these conditions were "waived in respect of aircraft operating in pursuit of the implementation of the Security Council Resolution 1368" (Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dail Debate 17 December 2002). Irish governments have always said that allowing aircraft to use Irish soil does not constitute participation in any particular conflict and is compatible with a neutral stance, instancing the transit of German troops between Finland and Norway through neutral Swedish territory during World War II

Wikipedia

oh right, its a 9/11 thing then, so why are we allowing the US to go to iraq via us.

if they were just going to afghanistan that would be different,

the us airplane spray painting guy was protesting this before iraq happened did anything significant come out of his trial?

is this and the sweden thing the very definition of belligerent troops through your territory

lostexpectation wrote:

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/othr/2001/4899.htm

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm

They were quick off the mark.