International Protection Bill 2026: Report and Final Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-25
============================================================

Rónán Mullen (IND), National University of Ireland

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I assure Senator Flynn that if I were planning to veer into the issues and the controversies around trans matters, I would be saying an awful lot more than I have been saying on this point. I merely give it as an example as to how human rights bodies have feet of clay,and how they propose ideas as though they are holy writ when, in fact, they are certain people's views of the world.
In the same way, there is considerable reason to think that aspects of the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence have been shaped in some ways by ideology. Everybody is entitled to their own philosophy, and some people will say that one person's judicial philosophy is another person's ideology. I get that. The fact is that the courts have gone in a particular direction. If we are to have democracies, we cannot set up judges as dictators who can turn previous understandings on their head without any future change being possible. We might as well just appoint judges to run our countries altogether if that was to be the judicial function. It is not the judicial function. It is the role of judges to interpret and apply the law. It is the role of democratically elected governments to secure the common good in their countries according to their lights and according to the desire and the will of the people as expressed. Yes, that is subject to higher duties, and it cannot be that Governments can cause their legislators to legislate for just anything. Yes, there are international understandings about what is necessary in order to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Where the courts, in the view of the majority of governments of the Council of Europe, are seen to have lost their way ever so slightly, we cannot pretend that this is just about a conversations between governments and courts. Governments want the European Court of Human Rights to reassess its position, not on every issue but on some issues where jurisprudence has made it impossible, in the view of those governments, to secure the common good for the people in their respective jurisdictions. There can be nothing wrong when it comes to democratically elected governments meeting, discussing and identifying issues of concern in decisions that have been made, and, in this case, seeking to get the European Court of Human Rights to reconsider and reassess the situation. There is no point in pretending that this is just governments acting in some kind of consultative way to help the court make up its mind. There is an awful lot more direction involved in this, and that is as it should be.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-03-25/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:46+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-03-25