Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2025: Committee Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-30 ============================================================ Catherine Ardagh (FF), Dublin South-Central I thank Senators who have contributed to the debate. I will address amendment No. 1, which I understand has not been moved. It provides interpretation in respect of the terms "crimes against humanity", "genocide" and "war crime" to be inserted into section 3 of the interpretation section of the principal Act, linking these terms to the definition in the statute of the International Criminal Court, which I take to refer to the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, and 8 provide for new terms to be included as part of the definition of terrorist-linked activity in the definitions section 4 of the principal Act. These new terms are further defined and expanded definitions to be inserted as proposed in amendments Nos. 15 to 18, inclusive, as discussed. They would insert a new section 4F into the principal Act. Combined, they create new terrorist offences in the engaging in terrorist-linked activity offence in section 6 of the principal Act. The effect is to criminalise as terrorism travel, organising travel, providing training, receiving training and recruitment for the purposes of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes against humanity or genocide. As explained, when the Bill was before the Dáil the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, understood the intention behind these amendments was to ensure that those who partake in or facilitate acts that contribute to the commission of breaches of international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide at the behest of a state via the armed forces, can be convicted of terrorist offences. I would like to condemn the actions of the IDF, the atrocities carried out in Palestine, the killing of innocent civilians and children and the starvation of a population, as well as the destruction of civilian infrastructure. The principal Act does not exclude the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict and in the exercise of their official duties from being categorised as terrorist offences, insofar as those activities are governed by humanitarian or other rules of international law. This was a requirement of the original underlying EU measures underpinning the Bill, namely the 2002 EU Council framework decision on combating terrorism. That requirement remains in the 2017 EU directive on combating terrorism, and the primary Act, on foot of the Bill, will give effect to it. The aim of the Bill is to give full effect to that directive. Therefore, the proposed offences fall outside the scope of the Bill. This exclusion is not intended to allow armed forces to act with impunity. Rather, it reflects the importance of maintaining the distinct legal frameworks that govern armed conflict and terrorism. International humanitarian law regulates the conduct of parties of law. While it allows certain acts of military violence may be lawful, it absolutely prohibits attacks against civilians. Such violations of international humanitarian law are war crimes. Acts of terrorism are always criminal offences and terrorists are criminals. There is no lawful terrorism. I emphasise the commitment to the rule of international law is enshrined in our Constitution. This is one of the core principles of Irish foreign policy and includes customary international law as well as international agreements Ireland is party to. These include the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions, which established international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war. In relation to international criminal law, most significantly Ireland gave effect to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court via the International Criminal Court Act 2006. This enables Irish courts to punish breaches of international law that fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, namely, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It also makes it an offence to facilitate the commission of these offences, including aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in their commission. It allows for the prosecution for such offences in Ireland while empowering authorities to assist the International Criminal Court in the investigation or prosecution of such offences. The Act also provides for universal jurisdiction over war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. An individual accused of such crimes can be prosecuted in Ireland regardless of their nationality or where the offence occurred. A similar form of universal jurisdiction is provided for in respect of certain offences under the Geneva Conventions Act 1962, as amended by the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1998. Thus, violations of international humanitarian law by the armed forces of a state are already crimes in our domestic law. International humanitarian law already delineates the spectrum of lawful and unlawful conduct in war. Overlaying a terrorism label onto this framework where all acts of terrorism are automatically illegal is redundant, disruptive and potentially dangerous. This is particularly the case where the armed forces or even the population of one side in a conflict is labelled as terrorist, as this can serve to circumvent the protections of international humanitarian law. For these reasons, I do not support the amendments. --- 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/2026-06-30/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:07+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-06-30