THIS WEEK, THE government approved a Bill that would do away with the ‘Triple Lock’ that governs the deployment of Irish soldiers overseas, arguing that the requirement for a UN mandate is hindering Ireland’s ability to join peacekeeping missions. 

The move has been strongly opposed by many TDs on the opposition benches in the Dáil. 

As it stands, a deployment of more than 12 Irish troops can only sent abroad if there is approval from the government, the Dáil and the United Nations.  

What are the two sides saying?

Debates around the scrapping of the UN mandate requirement have been intense.

Government politicians have been arguing that the issue with the UN mandate aspect lies in the structure of the UN Security Council, where the five permanent members – the US, UK, France, China and Russia – each have the power to veto any resolution. 

The Security Council is the UN body with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 members with one vote each, including the five permanent members and ten others who rotate. All member states are obligated to comply with Council decisions.

The General Assembly, a separate body, is the main policymaking organ of the UN, where international issues are discussed. All 193 UN member states are represented and each has one vote.

“I do not believe that United Nations Security Council members should have a veto on our participation in peacekeeping,” Taoiseach Micheál Martin told the Dáil last year during a debate on the Triple Lock.

“Our involvement in international peacekeeping can currently be held hostage by the veto-wielding power of any one of the five permanent UN Security Council members,” said Martin, who was Minister for Defence at the time. 

Opponents of the change to the Defence Act have argued that the removal of the UN aspect threatens Ireland’s military neutrality. But opposition politicians have also argued that a Security Council resolution is not required for troops to be deployed. 

The most prominent voice in the Dáil making that argument has been People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy, who has challenged the government’s assertion that the Security Council has final say when it comes to the deployment of Irish troops on peacekeeping missions. 

Murphy has referenced an amendment to the Defence Act made in 2006, which changed the definition of what constitutes an International United Nations Force. 

Asking Micheál Martin about the Security Council veto’s effect on Irish troop deployment in February this year, Murphy said that a resolution by the General Assembly would also unlock the Triple Lock, bypassing the need for Security Council approval.

“Does the Taoiseach accept that no such veto exists because of the Defence (Amendment) Act introduced in 2006, which makes clear that it is not only peacekeeping missions endorsed or agreed by the Security Council that unlock the third element of the triple lock but that resolutions of the General Assembly of the UN would also do so?”

Martin replied: “I do not accept Deputy Murphy’s point about the General Assembly.”

“Essentially, it is the Security Council that has the veto,” he said. 

So, who’s right? 

Because of the 2006 amendment, the Defence Act currently defines an International United Nations Force as “an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations”.

The key words in that definition are “or the General Assembly”, which support Murphy’s assertion that a resolution at the General Assembly, where no country wields veto power, would satisfy the requirements of the Triple Lock.

The next question is, can the General Assembly authorise a peacekeeping mission? 

The short answer is yes. 

However, it has only ever done so once, when Israel, Britain and France invaded Egypt in 1956. The situation was discussed at the Security Council but no decision was made due to vetoes from the British and French, who were also attacking Egypt over its nationalisation of the Suez Canal. 

Under the UN’s “Uniting for Peace” resolution, the matter was referred to the General Assembly, which held an emergency special session over the course of ten days. The Assembly eventually called for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of all foreign forces from occupied territories. 

It also established the first United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) to secure and supervise the process.

The ‘Uniting for Peace’ Resolution, emergency special sessions “shall be called if requested by the Security Council on the vote of any seven members, or by a majority of the Members of the United Nations”.

So the precedent is there for the General Assembly to form a peacekeeping force.  

That situation was exceptional though, and the UN Charter stipulates that the Security Council has “primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security”.  

There have only ever been ten emergency special sessions of the General Assembly and the one held in 1956 was the only one to lead to the establishment of a peacekeeping force. 

All other peacekeeping missions since then have been the product of the Security Council and there have been peacekeeping missions scuppered by permanent members using their veto powers. 

One of those unrealised missions was a peacekeeping force that the Republic of Ireland wanted to be established in Northern Ireland in 1969. A veto from Britain meant it never happened.  

The Journal’s FactCheck is a signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles. You can read it here. For information on how FactCheck works, what the verdicts mean, and how you can take part, check out our Reader’s Guide here. You can read about the team of editors and reporters who work on the factchecks here.