Goods from illegal settlements from Israel, which would be banned in Ireland under proposed occupied territories law, could legally enter the State if they were first imported to another EU country, the Oireachtas Foreign Affairs Committee has heard.
Prof Graham Butler, an expert on EU law, said the proposed Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2025 referred to direct imports and did not deal with goods imported from illegal settlements to other EU States.
Referring to the draft of the legislation, he told TDs and senators: “There would still be a way for it to come in lawfully.”
Prof Butler was one of four legal academics and practitioners who were invited to discuss the proposed ban with the committee, which is carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill. It is chaired by Fianna Fáil TD John Lahart.
READ MORE
In the Bill’s present form trade and services are not included.
Attorney General Rossa Fanning SC has been asked to give legal advice to the Government on incorporating this category into the Bill. That advice is expected shortly.
The academics expressed contrasting views on the standing of the Bill and on the inclusion of services.
Two leading authorities on European law, Prof Takis Tridimas and Prof Panos Koutrakos, said they took the view that a ban such as in the Bill would be justified on grounds of public policy.
“Although the public policy exception is to be understood narrowly, in our view, it allows Ireland to prohibit the importation and sale of goods originating in an occupied territory,” they said.
They said the Bill sought to comply with international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention. It also sought to protect human rights and it was in full alignment with the avowed objectives of EU law and the bloc’s political stance on matters of occupied territories.
They said a ban on trade in services with a third country would be justified under this provision. They said it would comply with obligations set out by an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July last year, which said Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories was in breach of international law.
Human rights barrister Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC, who has appeared on behalf of South Africa in its case against Israel at the ICJ for violation of the Genocide Convention, also spoke at the committee.
She said the Bill would enable Ireland to carry out obligations it has accepted for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security and the ICJ advisory opinion of July last year.
Ms Ní Ghrálaigh said the State’s obligation was not confined only to the advisory opinion but also to Israel’s ongoing military assault on Gaza and its people.
“The State is obliged to do so in accordance with its obligations in the light of egregious violations by Israel of its obligations in the Occupied Territories and in Gaza and its seizure of territories by force,” she said.
She said the long title of the Bill uses the language of the ICJ advisory opinion, but it omitted the term “investment relations”. She said that omission resulted in Ireland not being fully compliant.
“There is no basis in international law for differentiating between trade in goods and trade in services in the manner proposed, and no international law justification for legislating for less than full compliance by Ireland with an international obligation articulated by the ICJ,” she said.
In contrast, Prof Butler said the Bill was “prima facie” incompatible with EU law, and European case law gave no comfort to the view that the public policy exception was as wide to accommodate what the State was trying to do.
He said the competence to deal with what was being proposed, at present, resided where the State had put the competence: at the level of the EU.
