Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-15 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland As embarrassing as it would be, I would prefer if we were just honest about the lack of courage. What the Minister outlined is actually a disservice in terms of international law. It would be better to say we lack courage than to put forward wrong arguments at a time when an understanding of international law is so crucial. It is profoundly incorrect to say that there is a balancing between international law and European law, or that there is a tension there. Let us think what it means to suggest that there is a tension between European law and international law. What an irresponsible thing that is, frankly, to be saying at a time like this in the world. The fact is that European law sits within international law. In fact, a number of mechanisms have been put into European law to ensure there is compliance with international law. This idea that we balance one obligation against another obligation, this kind of creation of an artificial separation between European and international law, is unhelpful from a country which is supposedly leading discussions on international law for the next few months. I urge the Minister to rethink this, just for pure accuracy, because it may be a useful thing to say right now but it is not useful or correct. Professor Panos Tridimas and Professor Takis Koutrakos, two of the most eminent experts in EU law, have stated in respect of this clash that the understanding of public policy in EU law follows also in this regard. This is about the public policy exemption, and it is not like a minor technical thing around customs. It is a key principle. It is an objective within EU law, the EU legal structure and the treaty to avoid a situation where interpretation of EU law would make it impossible for member states to fulfil their international legal commitments. The intention is that member states can abide by international law. There is nothing in the treaty that says European law should be prioritised over international law. It is the absolute contrary. Measures and principles, like the public policy exemption, are put into European law to ensure member states can meet their international obligations. There is an obligation under international law to ban trade in services and it is not correct to say otherwise. In the hearings we had in the foreign affairs committee, we had two of the world's leading experts in. When we looked at this as an obligation originally, in 2017, we published our advice that was clear around the public policy exemption. We made it very clear how it could be used. The Government, on the legal advice it had then, denied it. In 2024, the Government finally accepted that the public policy exemption does offer a narrow pathway to ban trade with settlements at the national level. A distinction was not being made at that time between trade in goods and trade in services. The Minister has said that trade is trade and that includes goods and services under international law. In the foreign affairs committee, Professor Koutrakos and Professor Tridimas explicitly stated that public policy provides a derogation, not only from the free movement of goods but also from the freedom to provide services. For the reasons explained, they said, the prohibition of settlement goods and services, to the extent that they fall within the scope of EU law, is also justified by public policy. They saw no objective reason services might be differentiated from goods. They continued: "We take the view that a ban such as that provided for in the Bill, and which could be extended to services, would be justified on grounds of public policy". That is the evidence the committee heard and no one contradicted it. Even one of those who came in with the contrary perspective on the occupied territories Bill, Professor Graham Butler, said, "I am in total agreement with what Professor Koutrakos said about the existence of the exception even if it is not explicit for services in the same way as it is for goods". The public policy exemption is there as the tool. We are not asking the Minister to break EU law, and it is disingenuous and dangerous to suggest that is what is being requested. We are asking that the public policy exemption be interpreted in the way all these legal experts have said can be done. No legal experts have credibly come forward to say this cannot be done. The committee as a whole stated that we believed the right thing to do was to move ahead, take that action as a public policy exemption and say that these were our grounds. By the way, what would happen if a case was taken? The committee was absolutely confident that such a case would set a useful precedent and would force EU action not only in respect of goods and services. Rather than the long path to persuasion that we have been taking for a decade while everything has got worse followed by another long path to persuade others on services, it would actually require action. There was value in a case potentially being taken. Even in the worst-case scenario, if Ireland somehow did lose such a case, we would then simply have to adjust the law. There is no other penalty or consequence. There is no downside to taking the ambitious step. I regret that the Minister has come into the House with arguments that undermine other countries that might have the courage to take action in relation to services and take a narrow interpretation of public policy which is in conflict with every legal expert. If the Minister were to say that she wishes to wait and so forth, that would be one thing. To come up with something that is not backed by anything we have heard in the public domain - that the public policy exemption cannot apply to services - is unacceptable and, frankly, irresponsible. I will hand over to others. We are keen to move forward. We have a number of amendments to get to. --- 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/2026-07-15/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-27T06:52:16+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-07-15