Ireland's neutrality and proposed scrapping of triple lock 'entirely unrelated', Dáil committee hears

Current UN missions to Lebanon, which Ireland has been part of since 1978, were now in danger of not being renewed by the UN Security Council, Dáil told.

Ireland’s neutrality and the proposed scrapping of UN authorisation for future Irish peacekeeping missions are “entirely unrelated”, a former senior Department of Defence official has said.

Ciarán Murphy told the Oireachtas defence committee that there would be “absolutely” no change to Ireland’s neutrality — defined as non-membership of a military alliance — if the so-called ‘triple lock’ is removed.

The former assistant secretary, and defence policy director at the department, said it was a “fallacy” to argue the UN was a protector of Ireland’s neutrality and told committee members “this house” — as in the Dáil — was the protector.

Mr Murphy said the UN Security Council — which mandates UN missions — is in “gridlock” and there had been no new missions mandated since 2014. He added the current UN missions to Lebanon, which Ireland has been part of since 1978, were now in danger of not being renewed by the council.

Mr Murphy was one of three people attending committee hearings on the Defence Bill 2025.

The draft legislation proposes to remove the requirement for UN approval to send Defence Forces abroad. It also plans to increase the number of personnel that can be sent overseas — from 12 to 50 — without the Government needing the support of the Dáil.

The “triple lock” refers to three hurdles required — Government, Dáil, and UN — before sending troops beyond 12 personnel abroad.

The bill authorities Irish troops to take part in an “international force” for the purposes of peace-keeping, conflict prevention and international security “consistent with the principles of the United Nations Charter”.

Examples of such bodies include the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the EU, or “any other body” operating in a manner consistent with UN principles.

Professor Ben Tonra, UCD School of Politics and International Relations, said within tradition definitions of neutrality — non membership of a military pact — Ireland’s neutrality would be "unaffected” by the proposed amendment.

He accepted the removal of the triple lock was a “major” development in Irish policy, but he not believe it was a “fundamental one” that required constitutional change.

But he did suggest safeguards that could replace UN authorisation, such as a formal legal review of proposed deployments and an annual review mechanism.

Solicitor Joe Noonan agreed with the other contributors that the UN Security Council was not working properly, but cautioned Ireland “should not throw the baby out with the bathwater”, and said the focus should be on reforming and improving the UN processes.

He said senior figures within the European Commission appeared eager to push for closer agreement with Nato in defending Europe, and said Ireland was being subjected to “unrelenting” pressure to get on board to where the commission was heading.

Mr Noonan said if the current proposals were passed, a Government which had a simple majority in the Dáil could “send Irish troops anywhere in the world”.

But he said he did not believe the proposals had constitutional implications and did not see the Lisbon and Nice treaties being affected, which could give rise to a challenge in the European Court of Justice — as claimed by an academic at a previous hearing.

Mr Murphy said suggestions the UN General Assembly could provide UN backing to peace-keeping operations, without requiring the UN Security Council — comprising five major powers, each with a veto — to sanction it, were “operationally not feasible” and happened once, 80 years ago.