The Eagle: Trinity College Law Gazette Volume 11(2)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

Letter from the Editor

Competition Articles Ireland’s Principle of Military Neutrality: An Obsolete Relic in Modern Foreign Policy?

Mariia Sasina

4

Ireland’s Unanchored Neutrality: Shannon Airport, EU Defence, and the Case for Constitutional Protection Nazar El-Basheir

6

The Lost Legal Meaning of Neutrality and a Call for Reconceptualisation Daire Murray

8

The Obsolescence of Ireland’s Military Neutrality Ella Chepak

10

Ireland’s Military Neutrality: Dynamic, not Passive Gordii Kodubovskyi

12

Compromising Neutrality: Ireland’s Foreign Policy in a Changing Global Landscape Éabha Cosgrove

14

Ireland’s Commitment to European Defence and the Obstacles This Poses for Neutrality Alexandru Mihalca

16

Peace and Justice in a Changing World Gareth McCrystal

18

Articles Lessons from Ireland: Strengthening Abortion Rights Through Clarity and Equality Sophie Eastwood

20

Ukraine’s Legal Response to Conflict-Related Sexual Violence Chloé Feldman

22

A Political Earthquake: The Cancellation of the Romanian Presidential Elections Raina Bosniac

24

Rethinking Compensation in the Law of Tort Ryan Hickey

26

1 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 1

Photography, design, and layout Aoife Doheny

Senior Editorial Board Editor-in-Chief Aoife Doheny Deputy Editor Sarah Jones Copy Editor David O’Sullivan Public Relations Officer Hannah Hendry

Junior Editorial Board Junior Editorial Board Mira Bedi Leah Bernasconi Danielle Briody Nóra Collins Nazar El-Basheir Chloé Feldman Sarah Gonnord Cian Goulding Maisie Greener Maeve Hannon Jessica Jiang Maebh Kelly John Lonergan Isobel McSorley Síofra O’Donoghue Lily O’Keeffe Zhaolu Wang 2 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 1

Connect with Us tcdeagle tcdeagle The Eagle: Trinity College Law Gazette https://eaglegazette.wordpress.com The Eagle: Trinity College Law Gazette eaglegazette.tcd@gmail.com The Eagle staff endeavour to practice ethical journalism and promote integrity in their work. The Senior Editorial Board reserves the right to publish only those articles that they regard as accurate and not injurious.

We cannot guarantee that every article submitted to our publication will be published. All opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the staff, students, or administration of Trinity College Dublin.

A chairde, Welcome to The Eagle Gazette’s second issue of Volume 11, and our first issue of 2025.

Since its launch over a decade ago, The Eagle’s core values have been accessibility and the promotion of student voices. It aims to provide a platform for thirdlevel students to write, edit, and publish legal and political articles for a wider audience. We aim to showcase students’ initiative and critical thinking, and hopefully make a small contribution to their time in university as they progress through their degree and explore future career options.

With this in mind, The Eagle had the wonderful opportunity to run an essay competition in conjunction with Trinity College’s Law Society. We invited writers to contribute their thoughts on Ireland’s stance of military neutrality by responding to the title, ‘Ireland's principle of military neutrality has been rendered obsolete by current foreign policy. Discuss.’

Ireland’s military neutrality has been a cornerstone of its foreign policy and global identity since the inception of the State. Recently, however, the policy has come under scrutiny. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as increased scepticism around the efficacy of the UN Security Council, has resulted in the debate on neutrality being revived with vigour.

Overall, we received a remarkable range of articles examining recent Irish foreign policy and the role that military neutrality has – or has not – played in it, with authors providing differing opinions on how it should develop going forward. Keeping in mind the high standard of submissions across the board, it is my great pleasure to announce the winners of our competition: Mariia Sasina in first place, and Nazar El-Basheir as runner-up.

Mariia’s article stood out for its thoughtful suggestions on how Ireland might adapt its current policy to better reflect modern cybersecurity threats and strengthen its role on the international stage.

Nazar’s piece, on the other hand, argues for the greater protection of the neutrality principle and its enshrinement in the Constitution via referendum. Both pieces feature excellent research and strong, clear analysis which we hope will make our readers think about this issue in new, critical ways.

To reflect the quality of submissions, the Senior Editorial Board also selected six shortlisted articles to be published alongside the winners. Congratulations to Daire Murray, Ella Chepak, Gordii Kodubovskyi, Éabha Cosgrove, Alexandru Mihalca, and Gareth McCrystal, and thank you to everyone who sent in a submission.

Alongside the competition, The Eagle continued to operate its usual submissions policy, accepting articles on any current and engaging legal topics. Therefore I am delighted to present four articles on various international issues from writers Sophie Eastwood, Chloé Feldman, Raina Bosniac, and Ryan Hickey.

Their article themes include human rights concerns, democracy and the rule of law, criminal law, and reforming tort law.

To close off this letter, I owe a number of people some thank-yous.

Firstly, thank you to our sponsor, Maples and Calder, whose support is crucial for maintaining The Eagle.

I am beyond grateful to Ruairi Holohan, Competitions Officer at the Law Society, and David O’Sullivan, who manages to fulfill the role of Copy Editor at The Eagle while also being Competitions Convenor for the Law Society. Their hard work was instrumental in bringing this essay contest to life. Thank you in particular to David, who came up with the great theme.

Thank you as well to Sarah Jones, The Eagle’s Deputy Editor, and Hannah Hendry, our PRO, for their hard work in managing, organising, and publicising this issue (and the blog and the podcasts!). Thank you as well to Cait Flynn and Katie Carrig, the PRO team at the Law Society, for their assistance.

Finally, a huge thanks to The Eagle’s Junior Editorial Board. It goes without saying that this would not be possible without them.

Le dea-ghuí,

Aoife Doheny

Final note from the Editor – The Eagle Gazette is delighted to have been Highly Commended by the Student Publication Association in its Best Specialist Publication category in the 2025 Regional Awards. SPA is a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting student journalism.

The Eagle has been a proud member since 2024.

3 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Ireland’s Principle of Military Neutrality: An Obsolete Relic in Modern Foreign Policy?

Mariia Sasina, Master’s Programme, International and Comparative Law Winner of The Eagle Gazette x DU Law Society Essay Competition 2025 Introduction Ireland’s military neutrality has been one of the defining features of its foreign policy since the country gained independence in the early 20th century. Rooted in a historical context shaped by the experiences of war and colonialism, Ireland adopted a stance of neutrality that aimed to protect its sovereignty and avoid entanglement in global conflicts. For over 80 years, this policy has shaped the country’s foreign relations and defense strategies. However, as the global security landscape continues to evolve rapidly in the 21st century, many experts and policymakers are questioning whether this long-standing principle remains tenable.

The rise of new forms of warfare, such as cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and hybrid warfare, combined with growing geopolitical tensions in Europe, has led some to argue that Ireland’s neutrality is increasingly irrelevant and potentially harmful to its national security. Furthermore, Ireland’s reliance on international economic and technological infrastructure, as well as its increasing vulnerability to external threats, suggests that a more proactive approach to security may be necessary. This essay critically examines the principle of Ireland’s military neutrality, analysing the historical context, the evolving security environment, and the arguments for reassessing the country’s defense strategy.

Historical Context and the Origins of Neutrality The origins of Ireland’s neutrality lie in the country’s tumultuous history, particularly its experience with British colonialism and the struggle for independence.

Following centuries of British domination, Ireland gained independence in 1922 and adopted a policy of military neutrality in the face of the global conflicts of the 20th century. Ireland’s decision to remain neutral during World War II was driven by the desire to safeguard its sovereignty and avoid becoming embroiled in the destructive conflict between the Allied and Axis powers. This neutrality allowed Ireland to maintain its independence while also positioning itself as a moral actor in the international community, advocating for peace and non-intervention.

In the Cold War era, Ireland’s neutrality was also seen as a way to avoid taking sides between the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union.

This position allowed Ireland to foster strong diplomatic and economic ties with both the West and the Eastern Bloc, while also asserting its independence from military alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). During this period, Ireland 4 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

became known for its commitment to peacekeeping missions under the United Nations, emphasising its role as a peace-loving nation that contributed to global stability without resorting to military engagement.

However, the geopolitical landscape has shifted significantly since the Cold War, and the international security environment today is far more complex and interconnected than before. As new threats emerge, including cyber-attacks and hybrid warfare, many argue that Ireland’s long-standing commitment to neutrality may no longer be practical or effective in ensuring the country’s security.

Ireland’s Vulnerabilities in a Changing Security Environment In recent years, Ireland’s vulnerability to external threats has become more pronounced, particularly in the digital and maritime domains. Ireland’s role as a global hub for technology and business has made it increasingly reliant on international communications and energy infrastructure, which are critical to the country’s economic well-being. The Defence Policy Review 2024 identifies the country’s extensive network of undersea cables, which transmit 95 per cent of global internet traffic, as a key area of concern. These cables pass through or near Irish-controlled waters, making them highly susceptible to physical sabotage or cyber espionage. Given their importance to the global economy, any disruption to these cables could have farreaching consequences, not only for Ireland but for the world.

In addition to digital vulnerabilities, Ireland’s maritime security is also under increasing pressure. As the only neutral country on the western edge of Europe, Ireland occupies a strategically significant position in the North Atlantic. Russian naval activity in the region has grown in recent years, with increased presence in Ireland’s Exclusive Economic Zone. In 2022, Russia conducted military exercises near Ireland’s waters, raising concerns over potential hybrid attacks—combining conventional military tactics, cyber-attacks, and economic manipulation. Ireland’s limited naval capabilities and declining defense budget make it ill-prepared to respond effectively to these growing threats. As the Defence Policy Review 2024 emphasises, Ireland’s naval service is severely under-resourced, and urgent investments are needed to bolster maritime security and protect critical infrastructure.

Hybrid warfare, a strategy that blends cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns, and covert operations, has

emerged as one of the most significant security threats facing Ireland. The policy review highlights the risks posed by state actors including Russia and China, who have the capability and motivation to exploit Ireland’s digital and technological infrastructure. As the global geopolitical order shifts, Ireland’s historical neutrality may leave it exposed to these new forms of warfare, which could destabilise democratic processes, erode public trust, and disrupt essential services.

The Case for Reassessing Ireland’s Neutrality Ireland’s continued commitment to neutrality in the face of modern security threats has prompted calls from several experts to reassess the policy. Professor John O’Brennan of Maynooth University argues that Ireland’s neutral stance is no longer viable in light of contemporary geopolitical developments, particularly Russia’s full-scale military invasion of Ukraine.

O’Brennan suggests that Ireland’s neutrality has become a form of “strategic passivity,” isolating the country from collective defense structures and weakening its ability to address emerging threats. He contends that while neutrality once allowed Ireland to avoid entanglement in global conflicts, it now leaves the country vulnerable to hybrid attacks, cyber warfare, and the growing influence of authoritarian powers.

Similarly, Professor Ben Tonra of University College Dublin points out that many NATO countries, which are often perceived as military aggressors, contribute significantly to global peacekeeping efforts and international development. These countries, such as the Netherlands, Spain, and Estonia, balance military alliances with ethical contributions to global stability, making it difficult to justify Ireland’s stance of neutrality as morally superior. Tonra argues that Ireland’s isolationist approach is increasingly incompatible with the global security environment, particularly as the country’s technological infrastructure and strategic location make it an attractive target for state-sponsored cyber-attacks.

The question, therefore, is not whether Ireland should abandon its principle of military neutrality, but rather how the country can adapt its foreign and defense policy to meet the challenges of the 21st century. As a member of the European Union and a signatory to various international agreements, Ireland has a responsibility to contribute to the collective defense of Europe. While the country may not wish to join NATO or engage in military alliances, it can take steps to strengthen its defence capabilities and collaborate more

closely with international partners in areas such as cyber defence and peacekeeping.

The Role of Cybersecurity and International Collaboration One area in which Ireland can enhance its security posture is in the realm of cybersecurity. The 2021 ransomware attack on Ireland’s Health Service Executive highlighted significant weaknesses in the country’s cyber defenses. The attack, attributed to the Russia-based Conti group, compromised sensitive data and disrupted critical healthcare services, underscoring the need for enhanced cybersecurity infrastructure. The incident revealed the growing threat posed by cybercriminals and state-sponsored actors who are increasingly targeting critical national infrastructure.

Ireland’s participation in the European Union (EU) Cybersecurity Strategy and its involvement in initiatives like the European Defence Agency’s Cyber Defence Exercises are steps in the right direction. However, these efforts must be expanded to address the evolving nature of cyber threats. As part of the European Union, Ireland can work closely with its partners to strengthen collective cyber resilience and defend against the growing risks posed by malicious actors.

Furthermore, Ireland’s participation in international peacekeeping missions, while valuable, must be complemented by stronger defense capabilities at home.

As O’Brennan and Tonra argue, Ireland must move beyond its traditional “good citizen” role and engage more actively in the defense of its interests and those of its European neighbours. This could involve strengthening Ireland’s military alliances, improving its intelligence and counterintelligence capacities, and investing in technologies that enhance its ability to defend against hybrid warfare and cyber-attacks.

Conclusion In conclusion, Ireland’s principle of military neutrality, while historically significant, is increasingly at odds with the challenges posed by modern security threats.

As the global security landscape evolves, Ireland must reassess its policy and adapt its defence strategy to address the growing risks posed by cyber-attacks, hybrid warfare, and geopolitical instability. While neutrality may have served Ireland well in the past, it is no longer sufficient to ensure the country’s security in an interconnected and volatile world. Strengthening Ireland’s defence capabilities, enhancing cybersecurity, and fostering closer cooperation with international partners are essential steps for ensuring the country’s continued prosperity and stability within Europe.

Ultimately, Ireland must find a way to balance its historical commitment to neutrality with the realities of a new and complex security environment.

5 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Ireland’s Unanchored Neutrality: Shannon Airport, EU Defence, and the Case for Constitutional Protection Nazar El-Basheir, Law and Political Science, Junior Sophister Runner-Up of The Eagle Gazette x DU Law Society Essay Competition 2025 Introduction Ireland’s longstanding commitment to neutrality has been a cornerstone of its international identity since the foundation of the state. However, the absence of any constitutional anchor for this principle, in sharp contrast to other historically neutral states, renders it perpetually vulnerable to the changing priorities of successive governments. As it stands, the very definition of “neutrality” is subject to political whim.

Consequently, Ireland’s stance has been shaped by pragmatic government policies rather than by any immutable legal obligation, a situation that raises disquieting concerns regarding the future of neutrality itself. In order to illustrate why more robust legal safeguards and definitions are necessary, this paper will explore Ireland’s historical context of neutrality, examine the contentious use of Shannon Airport by foreign military forces, and interrogate the tensions introduced by evolving EU defence commitments.

These instances demonstrate how neutrality based solely on government policy risks being incrementally curtailed and diluted. Ultimately, while Irish neutrality has not necessarily been rendered obsolete, it stands in need of explicit constitutional, or at the very least statutory, provisions if it is to retain its integrity.

The Roots of Irish Neutrality The roots of Irish neutrality can be traced back to the country’s struggle for independence from Britain and the collective desire to avoid entanglement in greatpower conflicts. During World War II, referred to in Ireland as “The Emergency”, the Daíl unanimously voted in favour of neutrality. This policy was motivated by several factors: a desire to protect the state from the ravages of war, a signal of the new nation’s autonomy from Britain, and a recognition of Ireland’s limited military capacity. Although neutrality did not stop informal cooperation with Allied forces, particularly through information sharing and weather reports, it served as a defining moment for Ireland’s sense of independent foreign policy. Despite being maintained by the Irish State since WWII, neutrality has never been grounded in the constitution or statutory law (Horgan v Ireland [2003] 2 IR 468; Quain, 2021; Andrews, 2022).

Instead, it was, and remains, an evolving policy choice upheld by successive governments and sustained by public sentiment (Horgan v Ireland [2003] 2 IR 468; Andrews, 2022).

Shannon Airport Perhaps the most visible flashpoint in the debate over Ireland’s neutrality is the continued use of Shannon 6 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Airport by foreign armed forces—most notably those of the United States—en route to conflict zones in the Middle East. Opposition politicians emphatically regard this practice as a blatant breach of neutrality, arguing that accommodating troop movements to active theatres of war renders Ireland complicit in US-led military interventions. The Irish government maintains that these flights are merely troop transports rather than direct combat operations, and that no active military engagements are launched from Irish territory.

However, the distinction is semantic rather than substantive. Protests and public outcry have intermittently flared over this policy (most recently reported by RTÉ in 2024), revealing a profound disconnect between government policy and the public’s often romanticised understanding of Irish neutrality.

A landmark legal challenge was mounted against this policy in 2003. In Horgan v Ireland ([2003] 2 IR 468) the plaintiff contended that allowing large numbers of US troops to pass through Shannon Airport contravened Ireland’s neutrality obligations under international customary law. While the defendants maintained that Ireland practiced a more nuanced form of neutrality, the court determined that permitting a neutral state’s territory to be used for the passage of large numbers of troops and munitions from one belligerent state en route to war with another could not fall within such a notion of neutrality (Horgan v Ireland [2003] 2 IR 468).

It concluded that these actions were at odds with the status of neutrality under customary international law (Horgan v Ireland [2003] 2 IR 468). Nevertheless, the court ultimately held that although principles of international law can form part of Irish domestic law, they apply only insofar as they do not conflict with constitutional, statutory, or judge-made law (Horgan v Ireland [2003] 2 IR 468). Where such a conflict arises, domestic law takes precedence. Consequently, the principle of neutrality under customary international law could not limit the broad discretion granted to the Executive by the Constitution (Horgan v Ireland [2003] 2 IR 468).

This ruling demonstrates the precarious nature of a neutrality policy that lacks constitutional protection. In effect, the absence of a legally enshrined neutrality regime leaves the Executive with near-complete discretion in defining the parameters of neutrality, with no judicial recourse to challenge or constrain those determinations. Consequently, the viability of neutrality rests on shifting political imperatives rather than on a stable constitutional mandate. This fragility has, in

practice, enabled the Irish Government to continue facilitating a NATO power’s warfighting efforts, at least in logistical terms. This reality stands in stark contrast to the ideal of a country that remains completely aloof from foreign military conflicts. In that regard, Shannon Airport has come to epitomise the dilution of neutrality by government policy in the absence of robust constitutional protections.

PESCO and the EU Another key dimension to the debate over Irish neutrality is Ireland’s growing involvement in the European Union’s evolving security architecture. In 2017, the European Council launched Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), providing a framework for EU member states to collaborate more effectively on security and defence matters. To date, Ireland has participated in six PESCO projects, ranging from logistic hubs to critical seabed infrastructure protection. The Government has repeatedly emphasised that participation would neither compromise neutrality nor impose mutual defence obligations. However, opposition politicians remain wary. People Before Profit (PBP) TD Paul Murphy described PESCO as “an exercise in boiling the frog of neutrality”, while others contend that PESCO is a slippery slope toward an EU Army or something akin to it. Such fears are not entirely unfounded, given the Government’s stated intention to abolish the triple-lock mechanism, a longstanding and symbolic safeguard of Irish neutrality that is deeply embedded in its historical and political fabric.

The crux of this standoff is that Ireland lacks any concrete legal or constitutional definition or protection of neutrality (Horgan v Ireland [2003] 2 IR 468). Under the Government’s current interpretation, which regards neutrality as simply not belonging to a formal military alliance, participation in PESCO does not violate Irish neutrality. Nevertheless, in May 2024, then Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Michaél Martin cautioned that a constitutional amendment explicitly defining and protecting neutrality would “significantly constrain the Executive’s ability to exercise its policymaking authority in respect of the conduct of external relations”.

Yet, far from restricting diplomatic leeway, a clear constitutional framework might actually bolster the Government’s position. With constitutionally enshrined boundaries, Ireland could engage in collaborative security projects without sparking persistent controversy.

Any escalation beyond these constitutional limits would be expressly prohibited and subject to judicial intervention. In other words, rather than suffering under tighter constraints, the Executive could point to a democratically endorsed mandate for limited defence cooperation, thereby diffusing opposition fears of a covert shift toward militarisation.

A parallel to this is seen in Article 29.4.9 of the Constitution, introduced via referendum, which explicitly prohibits Ireland from adopting any European Council decision establishing a common defence that includes the State (Quain, 2021; Martin and Kenny, 2024). By codifying a similarly precise definition of neutrality, the public would have the power to set clear, democratically approved parameters for engagement in EU defence initiatives and beyond.

This would not only mitigate the perennial disputes that erupt whenever Ireland joins a new project under PESCO but also reinforce the transparency and legitimacy of governmental actions in foreign and security policy. Instead of undermining Ireland’s autonomy, a well defined constitutional safeguard could preserve national sovereignty by ensuring that any deeper or more contentious defence commitments receive explicit public sanction.

Conclusion In conclusion, Ireland’s neutrality has long been a matter of evolving political custom rather than a legally enshrined principle. From its origins in the country’s quest to assert independence and avoid great-power entanglements, neutrality has consistently functioned as a policy prerogative; one that can be adapted, expanded, or curtailed at the discretion of the Executive. Unless clearly defined and protected in the Constitution (or at least in statute), Irish neutrality will remain a fluid concept, easily recast in response to shifting diplomatic and strategic interests. Enshrining neutrality in law would provide both clarity and stability, ensuring that any future involvement in defence cooperation is bounded by transparently articulated public consent. Such a measure would not only preserve Ireland’s unique foreign-policy identity but also reinforce democratic oversight of one of the most consequential areas of state decision making.

7 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

The Lost Legal Meaning of Neutrality and a Call for Reconceptualisation Daire Murray, Single Honors Law, Junior Sophister Shortlisted for The Eagle Gazette x DU Law Society Essay Competition 2025 Introduction Article 28 of the Irish Constitution envisages a militarily neutral Irish state as a default mode. From this and Article 29, which commits the State to the ‘pacific settlement’ of international disputes, a complex relationship between the State, the people, and the notion of neutrality has evolved. However, the literal legal requirements of neutrality and the culturalpolitical add-ons have become muddled in the subsequent decades. Between the political use of the term and the emotional attachment to neutrality as part of an Irish cultural identity, the legal meaning has been lost in the mess. Only through understanding what Irish neutrality actually entails can we accurately decide which policies may breach it, and whether this conception of neutrality is the best way to navigate the turbulence of the modern world.

Defining Neutrality In the Irish context, military neutrality simply entails a commitment to non-belligerence or a prohibition of military involvement in international disputes.

However, passive involvement in other State’s military activities has been challenged and rejected as a breach of such neutrality, such as in the Horgan v Ireland and the Dubsky v Ireland cases. Therefore, the legal meaning of neutrality is narrowly defined, and contains only a negative duty for the Irish State.

In terms of political neutrality, Article 29 of the Constitution affirms commitment to the pursuit of peace and the pacific settlement of disputes. The Irish Government’s interpretation of this commitment is to take it in tandem with Article 28, and to promote peace in a general sense, as long as the conflict is below a certain threshold. Article 29 has never stopped the Irish government from expressing opinions about conflicts, or even acting in favour of one side of a dispute. For example, during the Falklands War, Ireland supported economic sanctions against Argentina after the initial incursion; however, as soon as the war became militant, the State had to revert back to a position of neutrality.

Therefore, the Constitution not only allows the Irish state to undertake economic sanctions, but it also permits participation in an ‘economic war’. The prevailing understanding is that the constitutional line is drawn at military actions, therefore defining neutrality in the narrowest sense.

Irish neutrality in action was most comprehensively displayed during the Second World War. 8 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Formally, Ireland took an unequivocally neutral stance – militarily, politically and morally. This position relied on heavy censorship of the media to prevent citizens from favouring one side over another. Once the war ended, and the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps were revealed, the ‘morally neutral’ stance of the de Valera government came under fierce criticism.

In contrast, Switzerland’s approach to neutrality is to restrict the state alone to formal neutrality. Individuals, including the media, are free to develop and express opinions and views. In this way, the issues surrounding ‘moral neutrality’ are avoided. This approach is more in line with a text-based interpretation of the Constitution, where neutrality is understood as a constitutional value and a restriction on the State rather than the people.

In summary, a textual interpretation of neutrality as a constitutional value requires the State to observe military neutrality… and that is it. The Constitution only forbids Irish involvement in a conflict involving military actions.

Neutrality and European Integration – Incompatible Policies?

When Ireland joined the European Economic Community in 1972, one of the main concerns for its existing members, (all of whom were also members of NATO) was the Irish policy of neutrality. In 2017, official plans took place to coordinate defence and security between European Union states, beginning a process which is increasingly likely to lead to a shared EU defence force. The issue that was on the ballot when Ireland held referendums to sign the Lisbon Treaty appears to be looming again – European Integration requires the abandonment of the idealised notion of Irish neutrality where the policy and our larger allies could keep the island safe.

It may be argued that Irish involvement in the EU defence forces and commitment to the process of European Integration (including shared security strategies) would, in itself, be a breach of the neutrality envisaged by the Constitution. However, defensive preparation and even defensive alliances, once there is no involvement in a military conflict, do not breach the narrowly defined constitutional value of neutrality.

Rather, shared defensive strategies shatter the mirage that Ireland remains safe against attack, purely as a result of its commitment to neutrality. Professor David Murphy outlines three reasons for this misconception, with the most dangerous being the idea that Ireland can expect protection from a larger power. Simply put, Ireland has no such protection, and will not receive any

such protection without contributing large portions of its budget to a shared alliance.

Indeed, many argue that this idealistic view has left Ireland far behind in terms of defence. Professor Murphy states that Ireland’s defence capacity is at preWorld War II levels, as ships lack sonar and planes lack radar. Recent attacks on cyber infrastructure as well as incursions by Russian submarines demonstrate these failures. Professor Murphy argues that the war between Russia and Ukraine should be a wake-up call to Ireland – to increase spending on defence, and let go of the idealistic notions of neutrality.

Irish Foreign Affairs Policy – the American Warplanes Irish neutrality has been brought back into the political arena in recent years as a result of the use of Shannon Airport to refuel U.S. war planes en route to Afghanistan, Iraq and now Palestine. As determined by two unsuccessful cases, Horgan and Dubsky, the constitutional provisions on neutrality and pacific settlement of disputes simply lack sufficient substance to compel government action. It is unlikely that the planes heading to Palestine would elicit a different interpretation from the courts.

However, this issue provides a further insight into how Irish citizens perceive neutrality and how they are moved to enforce it. The call for State refusal to allow war planes through Irish airspace is a call for a more active and meaningful realisation of the Constitution’s aspiration to peace. Despite past decisions, there is potential in the constitutional provision from which to draw a positive obligation on the state to actively pursue peace in all of its actions as a State.

Under a strict, textual understanding of neutrality, this is not required of the State. However, an intersectional and contextual approach – one that prioritises the

active pursuit of fairness and independence for all over non-involvement – would require Ireland take a stance when confronted with such requests from a belligerent power. This situation begs the question that if the state is not morally or politically neutral on an issue, should the Constitution at least require actively peaceful decisions on issues such as the US planes fuelling at Shannon?

Defending Neutrality Irish neutrality is certainly under threat, from both external and internal forces. Externally, the policy of military neutrality is under pressure from the European Union and other supranational institutions calling for Ireland to forgo the policy of shared defence.

The poor condition of Irish defence forces places nonbelligerence under further threat, as without means of defending the State, military neutrality could quickly devolve into a loss of sovereignty over the state.

Within Ireland, neutrality is criticised by those who argue that the policy is too passive and should actively protect victimised peoples, by those who believe that Ireland is too politically opinionated and should adopt a more neutral position to international affairs, and by those who believe that neutrality is no longer the best strategy to protect the Irish State.

The only shared consensus is that Irish neutrality is an issue that must be revisited – by politicians and decision makers, by the electorate, and by the defence forces.

Attention must refocus on what it means to be where we are now: neutral and undefended, and on whether our commitment to neutrality or to peace is stronger.

Conclusion The legal meaning of neutrality has been lost in public discussions of the topic. It has been imbued with cultural, political and social ideas about how Ireland should manage its external affairs and defence policies.

This divergence in understanding poses a real issue, one which can only be solved by a return to this question, and an honest conversation about the future of Irish neutrality.

9 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

10 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

The Obsolescence of Ireland’s Military Neutrality Ella Chepak, English and History, Senior Freshman Shortlisted for The Eagle Gazette x DU Law Society Essay Competition 2025 Introduction Ireland’s status as a militarily neutral country has been a highly contentious topic in its history throughout World Wars I and II as well as with modern alliances.

Before examining this point, one must first understand the definition of military neutrality. This is when a state does not participate in armed conflicts, as well as refrains from forming alliances with other nations.

Garret Fitzgerald’s article ‘The Origins, Development, and Present Status of Irish “Neutrality”’ provides a key foundational understanding of the evolving nature of Irish neutrality. He argues that “all neutralities are contingent”, showing that they evolve based on historical circumstances. This is certainly true in Ireland, with neutrality playing a key role in Irish foreign policy since the creation of the Free State in 1922. Ireland’s neutral stance became global news during WWII, when the government refrained from siding with either the Axis or the Allied powers.

However, despite this claim of neutrality throughout the war, Ireland showed a clear bias towards Allied powers, foreshadowing the nuanced understanding of neutrality to come into the contemporary age.

This article will set out to argue that Ireland’s military neutrality is increasingly at odds with the political realities of the world. It will argue that Ireland’s actions have never reflected those of a truly neutral state, highlighting how this stance is not only outdated but impractical in addressing modern issues.

Compromises During World War II While Ireland claimed that their official policy in WWII was neutrality, their true position was much more nuanced. The Irish government held a tactical alignment with the Allies, including Britain, France, the US, and the Soviet Union. This was demonstrated by its refusal to allow German forces to use Irish territory for their military operations. While this could be viewed as Ireland refraining from any involvement, this decision had much more thought behind it, withith Ireland using neutrality as a position to benefit them politically and economically. Additionally, Ireland’s intelligence services monitored Axis activities, and about 120,000 Irish citizens fought alongside Allied forces. Finally, Ireland’s reliance on British trade and aid influenced them during the war.

Britain and Ireland were aligned in many ways throughout WWII; additionally, due to their economic relationship, they had an intelligence-sharing arrangement. The basis of this agreement involved their exchange of critical information to prevent Ireland from becoming a base for Axis powers.

With Irish citizens such as Emily Anderson serving as codebreakers at Bletchley Park, citizens' involvement in

the war shows they did not agree with the policy of neutrality. Michael Kennedy argues that the BritishIrish relationship was crucial in keeping Irish sovereignty; however, it still affected Ireland’s neutral stance. This corporation also has legal implications, leading to a perception of benevolent neutrality rather than a true neutral state. Neutrality is not enshrined in the 1937 Constitution but is a political choice that became an ideal in the 20th century. Ireland’s true position came to light when it was pressured by the Allied governments to stop relations with Axis powers: “The pressure on the Irish government increased until February 1944, when the American and British governments pressured the Irish government to close the legations of the Axis powers.” Such dynamics highlight the difference between the ideal of neutrality and the realities of its international relations.

After the war, Ireland benefited significantly from the US’s Marshall Plan, which aimed to facilitate post-war economic recovery in Europe. Though Ireland was not one of the primary recipients, it still received a cumulative €133 million. The influx of American capital and resources contributed to the modernisation of Irish infrastructure and industries, boosting economic growth. Furthermore, the post-war climate fostered stronger ties with the U.S., opening avenues for trade and cultural exchange. Thus, while Ireland maintained a policy of neutrality during the war, it still benefited from post-war recovery and the formation of new alliances.

International Engagement Looking past WWII and in the latter half of the 20th century, Ireland participated in UN peacekeeping missions. “Ireland is proud of being the only nation to have a continuous presence in the UN and UNmandated peace support operations since 1958, with Irish peacekeepers highly respected internationally.”

Ireland deploys the defence forces in these missions, marking an evolution in military engagement. While these missions are often framed as humanitarian efforts, they require active military engagement and collaboration with other nations.

The Partnership for Peace (PfP) represents another shift from neutrality. While Ireland asserts that PfP participation is not equivalent to NATO membership, this remains open to interpretation. Joint exercises with NATO forces necessitate military alignment, challenging Ireland's claim to neutrality. Driscoll notes that the lack of a clear distinction between neutrality and non-alignment complicates Ireland's foreign policy narrative. Engaging in NATO-associated exercises undermines Ireland’s neutral identity, signalling a willingness to collaborate militarily with nations that may not share its historical stance. Despite its commitment to neutrality, Ireland's involvement in the

PfP highlights a growing tension between traditional non-alignment and the need for cooperation in a complex security environment.

Former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has advocated for maintaining this stance at the 2024 Munich Security Council, emphasising that Ireland is a neutral nation.

He argued that neutrality allows Ireland to act as a mediator in international conflicts, fostering dialogue and cooperation over military confrontation. This is seen in Ireland hosting an international conference, ‘Shared Future: Building and Sustaining Peace, the Northern Ireland case study.’ But this is the limit of its attempt at mediation. However, he also stated that Ireland is ‘reliant’ on the UK for military protection.

This implies that Ireland would align with the UK militarily, again showing they are not truly neutral.

The influence of global political dynamics on Ireland's foreign policy is evident in legal debates surrounding its neutrality. As Sean Lemass said in 1960, “There is no neutrality, and we are not neutral,” signalling a recognition among policymakers that the traditional concept of neutrality may no longer be relevant. This acknowledgement arises amidst shifting global power dynamics, where multilateral cooperation is seen as essential for national security. Pressures from European integration, particularly following the Treaty of Lisbon, have further complicated Ireland's legal stance on neutrality. Engaging with EU defence initiatives raises debates about whether to prioritise national sovereignty or collective security. Ireland must reassess its understanding of neutrality in light of these pressures, as rigid neutrality may limit its capacity to respond effectively to contemporary security challenges.

Ireland’s Evolving Neutrality and Foreign Policy Ireland has also played an increased role in the European Union defence policy, with reports saying: “Ireland continues to pursue a policy of military neutrality while playing an international security role in support of the multilateral system and European security and defence.” It has also established the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) as a framework for collective defence and crisis management within the EU. As a Member State, Ireland is legally obligated to engage with CSDP missions, which often involve military cooperation and strategic alignment with other EU nations. This participation raises critical questions about the essence of Irish neutrality. While Ireland strives to maintain its neutral identity, its engagement in CSDP operations indicates a shift towards a more proactive foreign

policy that is at odds with its claimed non-alignment.

While Ireland has maintained a formal stance of military non-involvement, its active provision of humanitarian assistance and its alignment with EU sanctions against Russia signal a departure from a strict interpretation of neutrality. Legally, Ireland justifies these actions through international law principles that prioritise human rights and humanitarian assistance in times of conflict. However, this raises complex questions about the limits of neutrality. Ireland's support for Ukraine “may align with humanitarian principles, but it simultaneously reflects a willingness to engage politically and economically in a conflict.” This dual approach complicates Ireland's claim to neutrality, as its actions indicate a readiness to take sides on issues of international security.

The public discourse surrounding neutrality in Ireland has gained momentum in recent years, particularly as global security dynamics shift. Many voices in the Irish political landscape, such as Tánaiste Micheál Martin, are calling for a reassessment of neutrality. This discourse reflects a growing recognition that traditional notions of neutrality may no longer suffice in a world characterised by complex interdependencies and security challenges. Fanning argues, “Ireland's historical commitment to neutrality is increasingly seen as a liability in an era where collective security and proactive engagement are essential.” As public opinion shifts and the legal landscape evolves, Ireland may find itself at a crossroads, compelled to redefine its understanding of neutrality to better fit the realities of global security.

Conclusion Ireland’s historical commitment to neutrality is increasingly at odds with its contemporary foreign policy. The actions of citizens have highlighted that this is not what they wanted throughout WWII, and this has carried into modern day. Ireland hides behind a policy of neutrality, but the shifts in foreign policy have profound implications for Ireland's national identity and international standing. As Ireland engages more actively in global security issues, its perception as a neutral state is undermined. This evolving identity could alter how Ireland is viewed internationally, potentially impacting its relationships with both allies and other neutral states.

Given these complexities, there is a pressing need to reassess Ireland's legal framework for neutrality.

Contemporary global realities demand a clearer legal position that reflects Ireland’s evolving role in international security. Advocating for a revised understanding of neutrality could empower Ireland to engage meaningfully in collective security efforts while preserving its foundational values. A reevaluation could ensure that Ireland’s foreign policy aligns more coherently with its historical commitment to neutrality, fostering a more effective approach to contemporary challenges.

11 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

12 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Ireland’s Military Neutrality: Dynamic, not Passive Gordii Kodubovskyi, Law (Major) and Political Science, Senior Freshman Shortlisted for The Eagle Gazette x DU Law Society Essay Competition 2025 In today’s globalised world of unprecedented interconnection between nations, a significant number of concepts once central to managing international relations have become mere holdovers of the past, no longer regarded as the most effective or rational approaches to handling political affairs. One exceptional example of such outdated notions can be seen in the traditional perception of hard power exerted in the international arena through the use of war. Many contemporary actors have meaningfully refrained from direct military interference in pursuit of their interests and the exertion of influence, by virtue of the growing role of institutionalism, the enforcement of international law, and the establishment of global norms. With the growing emphasis on soft power, some states have gone further by declaring their neutrality in military engagements, reflecting a broader shift toward non-coercive strategies in global diplomacy over direct military involvement. Ireland is one of these wellknown minorities that maintains a neutral position that has been upheld in its policy for many years. However, in recent years, the shift in global dynamics along with emerging security threats may have led to a reevaluation of Ireland’s neutrality. The question arises as to whether Ireland’s principle of neutrality remains relevant in the first place, in light of the current complexity of the global landscape, Ireland's role in the EU, and the context of broader international concerns.

Hence, this essay will critically examine the significance of Ireland's long-standing neutrality, with major reference to law, international relations theory, and empirical evidence. It will provide an understanding of the foundational principles behind this policy and argue against the claim that neutrality is outdated and flawed.

Importantly, Ireland’s position on neutrality is deeply intertwined with its history and national identity. The state’s decision to adopt a neutral stance emerged as a reaction to its colonial past and its struggles with Britain to achieve independence. After the Irish Free State was established in 1922, the state affirmed its sovereignty by adopting neutrality, officially declared during World War Two (WWII) under the Emergency Powers Act 1939. Crucially, Ireland had viewed neutrality as essential for safeguarding the newly recognised independent country from being drawn into devastating wars. While neutrality served as a defensive instrument for the state’s sovereignty during WWII, it also involved, to some extent, tactical cooperation with Britain—such as allowing Allied forces the limited use of Irish airspace. Notably, this duality highlights a central principle for Ireland: neutrality serves as a strategic, rather than an absolute, policy.

Irish neutrality, most importantly, has been a deliberate and strategic national choice, which reflects a broader desire to maintain its independence in foreign policy. Contrary to other European states, whose

neutrality is implicitly rooted in international treaties – such as Switzerland and Austria, Ireland’s neutral position is self-imposed and not bound by international frameworks. Such autonomy allows the state to define the terms of its neutrality policy, while balancing its commitments to international institutions with its constitutional obligations. The basis of the state’s policy in this stance is reflected in Ireland’s legal framework.

Article 29 of the Irish Constitution serves as the primary foundation for neutrality, affirming adherence to international law and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Furthermore, Ireland adopts a dualist approach in its domestic policy toward international law, requiring treaties to be incorporated at the national level before they become enforceable. This creates a complex legal landscape where the Irish state must carefully balance national sovereignty with its commitments under European Union (EU) and United Nations (UN) frameworks. However, this approach also provides Ireland with the flexibility to shape its legal and policy choices, ensuring they align with national priorities. For instance, while Ireland retains its neutral stance, the Lisbon Treaty enables participation in EU defence initiatives, such as the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), provided these initiatives respect its neutrality. Such involvement, however, raises critical questions: does it undermine neutrality, or reflect its evolution by allowing Ireland to contribute to collective security while upholding constitutional commitments? Should Ireland rely on existing EU mechanisms, such as exit clauses, or pursue domestic legal reforms to clarify the boundaries of its neutrality in an evolving security landscape?

Neutrality, as a policy, has often been criticised due to the ostensible notion of its inconsistency and obsolescence in the light of modern geopolitical concerns. Notably, critics argue that doctrines such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which obligate states to intervene in cases of mass atrocities, expose the limitations of Ireland’s neutral stance. For instance, Conor Gallagher, in his book Is Ireland Neutral? The Many Myths of Irish Neutrality, discusses how Ireland's policy of neutrality is increasingly being questioned, highlighting the pressure on Ireland to reassess its stance in the face of evolving international dynamics.

However, such criticism overlooks the policy's complexities, primarily ignoring a crucial point: neutrality does not equate to passivity. In fact, it represents a strategic and proactive approach to international relations, with flexibility built into the foundation of the framework. From an international law perspective, it is evident that Ireland’s neutral stance aligns with the UN Charter, which emphasises non-aggression and collective security. Irish foreign policy is fundamentally built on the principles of soft power, a concept developed by political scientist Joseph Nye.

Nye, a former Dean of Harvard Kennedy School, defines ‘soft power’ as a nation's ability to influence others through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion. In Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, he explores how states can leverage culture, political values, and foreign policy to shape global affairs. He further develops these ideas in his work The Future of Power, analysing the evolving dynamics of power in the 21st century. Actors can set the terms of international affairs through trade, diplomacy, agreements, and shared values—and Ireland’s neutrality has earned it a strong reputation for impartiality, particularly in UN peacekeeping missions in Lebanon and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Remarkably, Ireland’s neutral policy enhances its credibility in global governance, particularly in peacebuilding efforts and humanitarian initiatives. For instance, Irish leadership in advocating for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and active involvement in UN peacekeeping missions underscores how a neutral stance can promote and maintain stability and justice, especially by engaging with conflicting parties without the burden of alliancedriven biases. In this regard, criticism that labels neutrality as passive often fails to account for the complexities of global diplomacy, where the absence of direct military engagement can create unique opportunities to foster dialogue and, subsequently, trust and cooperation. Therefore, flexibility is evidently key to modern neutrality. Ireland’s ability to adapt its stance to address emerging issues—such as hybrid threats and climate security—demonstrates the evolution of the policy. This adaptability ensures that neutrality remains relevant, countering criticism that it is an obsolete or impractical stance. Neutrality is far from a static position; it equips Ireland to navigate the complexities of modern international relations and law while preserving its sovereignty and commitment to peace, which is integral to its national identity. For example, the Russian invasion of Ukraine further revealed the flexibility of Ireland’s stance in international affairs, with the state supporting EU sanctions against Russia and supplying Ukraine with non-lethal assistance, such as aid and refugee support.

These actions highlight Ireland’s approach to neutrality as pragmatic, with a central focus on balancing collective European security while avoiding direct military engagement – challenging the notion that neutrality must be passive and outdated.

Most importantly, Ireland’s principle of neutrality, much like the state’s Constitution, is capable of

evolution in order to remain relevant and up-to-date.

Ireland is known for adapting its domestic legal framework—both by incorporating new laws and amending existing ones. Just as the Irish Constitution has evolved through crucial amendments and landmark cases, reflecting changing modern values and realities, neutrality can similarly evolve if needed. Ireland has held forty-three referendums on various concerns— such as political reforms, rights and social issues, and EU treaties – of which thirty have passed.

The Constitution has undergone significant reforms, including the famously recognised case of McGee v Attorney General, which led to a societal perception change regarding Ireland’s ban on contraception. In this case, it was argued that the ban significantly violated the right to privacy, ultimately resulting in the recognition of a constitutional right to marital privacy.

This subsequently led to the Fifteenth Amendment (1995), which legalised divorce in Ireland. This highlights the ability of the Irish legal system to grow and develop without losing its foundational principles.

Neutrality, in this sense, is not a static policy but one that can adapt to address modern concerns such as cyber threats, hybrid warfare, and climate-related security risks. For example, Ireland’s leadership in advocating for climate security inclusion on the UN agenda exemplifies how neutrality can evolve to engage with non-traditional security threats. Additionally, participation in EU cyber defence initiatives illustrates how neutrality can be compatible with collective security efforts when grounded in legal safeguards, such as the Triple Lock mechanism—a safeguard within Irish foreign policy that ensures Irish military participation abroad can only occur under the following three conditions: government approval, a mandate from the United Nations (UN), and approval by the Irish parliament (Dáil Éireann). Hence, by retaining flexibility, neutrality allows Ireland to balance its constitutional commitments with its international obligations. It maintains sovereignty while contributing to global stability. The ongoing refinement of neutrality, informed by constitutional principles and international law, ensures that it remains a powerful tool for diplomacy and peace.

In conclusion, Ireland’s principle of military neutrality, while often criticised as obsolete in the face of modern global challenges, remains a vital and adaptable policy.

Despite evolving security threats, Ireland's neutrality continues to reflect strategic autonomy, rooted in its historical context and national identity. While critics argue that it limits the country’s effectiveness in addressing contemporary issues, Ireland's approach demonstrates flexibility, integrating non-coercive strategies, such as participation in EU defence initiatives and non-lethal support for Ukraine. This evolution highlights that neutrality is not passive but rather significantly a dynamic policy that preserves sovereignty while contributing to global peace and stability.

13 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Compromising Neutrality: Ireland’s Foreign Policy in a Changing Global Landscape Éabha Cosgrove, Single Honors Law, Senior Freshman Shortlisted for The Eagle Gazette x DU Law Society Essay Competition 2025 Growing interdependence between countries in terms of trade, security, and defence has arguably raised the issue of the compatibility between globalisation and neutrality. The principle of military neutrality has been a hallmark of Irish identity since the foundation of the State. It was first adopted as a policy during the Second World War, a pragmatic decision taken by Éamon de Valera designed to assert Irish sovereignty and avoid involvement in conflict while the State was in its infancy. Neutrality has clearly evolved as a concept since its inception. While it remains relevant in a contemporary security context, this essay aims to explore some of the strains the principle has come under in light of significant shifts in the global landscape.

Ireland’s neutrality is characterised by the “nonmembership of military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements”. This definition sets the bar for breaching neutrality at an exceptionally high level. This flexible approach has allowed Ireland to contribute to security and defence issues within multilateral institutions, and even bilaterally with defence alliances, while remaining within the parameters of their definition of neutrality. Ireland’s neutrality has been successful from a security policy perspective as they have managed to avoid direct involvement in conflicts.

However Ireland owes much of their success to the benefits of fortunate geography. Other neutral countries such as Finland and Sweden did not enjoy the same geographical luxury due to their proximity to Russia, so their policies of non-alignment were heavily influenced by geopolitical constraints. Both countries have since abandoned their neutrality in response to the resurgence of Russian aggression in Europe, with Finland joining NATO and Sweden applying to do the same.

Ireland is no longer insulated from major security events in Europe as their footing on the international stage has shifted dramatically since they first adopted their policy of military neutrality. Ireland is a major transnational data hub. Ireland hosts the European headquarters of several global corporations, and 75% of Europe’s transatlantic telecommunications cables pass through Ireland’s maritime Exclusive Economic Zone. This is crucial infrastructure that serves the UK and Western Europe, making Ireland an attractive target for cyber-attacks. Ireland joined the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in 14 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

2019 to combat these developments, however concerns have still been raised about Ireland’s independent defence capabilities.

Ireland has always been accused of “free-riding” on the defence policies of the United Kingdom and other NATO neighbours. Historically, Ireland has benefited from collective security while making little contribution to it. Perhaps this reflects Ireland’s view of EU membership in purely transactional economic terms.

Security threats such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russian activity in Irish airspace and waters have highlighted government complacency towards defence. Countries such as Switzerland have reinforced their neutral status through significant investment in their armed forces. As Salmon contends in his book “Unneutral Ireland”, “the credibility and viability of neutrality presuppose a strong independent defence”. Even Sinn Féin, in contrast to other proponents of military neutrality, recognise that a sufficient defence force is central to upholding a policy of neutrality.Ireland’s policy of neutrality is under significant strain in the face of these global challenges and they must strengthen their ability to defend themselves to legitimise their claim to neutrality and protect their sovereignty.

Ireland’s principle of military neutrality has been compromised by the ongoing US military use of Shannon Airport. The airport has provided landing and refuelling facilities to the US military since 2002. A spokesperson for peacekeeping and human rights group Shannonwatch has said that “Shannon has had over two decades of complicity in wars in the Middle East” and that Ireland has “abandoned its neutrality to support US war mongering”. Ireland is directly facilitating US military operations by assisting in the transit of munitions from the US to regions such as Israel. Ireland cannot possibly claim to uphold their policy of neutrality while compromising their status as international peacekeepers in this manner, and they must call for an immediate revision of this policy.

Indirect Irish support for the international arms trade also compromises neutrality. While Ireland does not directly manufacture weapons, they do produce components of equipment which can be used for “military purposes”. By 2013 Irish-based companies were exporting €200 million of military equipment.

These realities have called into question the legitimacy of Ireland’s principle of neutrality as they seem to be both directly and indirectly supporting warfare. Ireland are also currently unable to defend themselves against attack independently. Despite this, the question of whether or not their principle of military neutrality has

been rendered wholly obsolete is not straightforward.

Ireland’s neutrality has always been closely linked with UN membership, as we significantly contributed to UN peacekeeping missions since joining the international organisation in 1955. Ireland’s military non-alignment with belligerents has allowed Irish troops and diplomats to act as impartial mediators in international conflicts. The Irish public values Ireland’s neutrality as it is seen as a reflection of their values of peacekeeping, humanitarianism and non-nuclear proliferation.

Concerns are often raised about deeper integration into European Union defence structures and what that may mean for neutrality. Ireland is involved in a number of initiatives under the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy, including Permanent Structured Corporation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF). In order to participate in such initiatives without undermining neutrality, the Irish government and the EU have put a number of safeguards in place.

Public resonance with neutrality is evidenced in the initial rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, Article 42.7 of which contains a mutual assistance clause. This provision sparked fears about expansion of European defence cooperation and its implications for neutrality.

For the Treaty to be accepted in a second Irish referendum in 2009, the European Council had to provide a guarantee to Ireland that neutral states could “determine the nature of aid or assistance” provided to other member states in the event of an armed attack.

The clause was also prefaced by the statement that it “shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states”.

The “Triple-Lock” mechanism is the cornerstone of Irish neutrality. It requires that a UN mandate, government decision and Dáil approval must be acquired before Defence Forces personnel can be deployed overseas. Legislative proposals to amend the triple lock are currently being drafted due to the fact that the permanent five members of the UN Security

Council have the power to veto proposals, including proposals on whether Ireland can deploy peacekeepers on UN missions. Some government officials, including Micheál Martin, have posited that the UN Security Council is paralysed and that their veto power is a threat to Irish sovereignty. Martin expressed these views at an International Security Policy Consultative Forum in June of 2023. Many proponents of neutrality, including President Michael D. Higgins, spoke out in response to this forum. The President remarked that Ireland is “playing with fire” during a dangerous period of “drift” in its foreign policy. The UN mandate is a key facet of Irish neutrality, as it ensures that any deployment of Irish troops overseas is part of an internationally recognised peacekeeping effort that aligns with Irish values, as opposed to waging war as part of a military alliance.

An amendment of the triple lock would be a fundamental shift in Irish foreign policy that could potentially eradicate Irish neutrality. If the government dismantles this mechanism without meaningful public debate, it will be subverting a deep-rooted Irish support for neutrality. The justification for calling for an alternative “double-lock” system and removing the UN mandate centers around the fundamental flaw of conflicting interests within the UN Security Council.

Rather than designing a solution based on this flaw, perhaps calling for a reform of the UN Security Council itself would be more pertinent.

Globalisation has blurred the conceptual boundaries of neutrality, even though neutrality as a concept has always been difficult to define. Ireland has ostensibly remained within the narrow parameters of its own definition of military neutrality, namely the nonmembership of military alliances. However, it is clear that Ireland continues to conduct its foreign policy in a manner that stretches, and sometimes surpasses, the limits of neutrality. Important safeguards such as EU declarations and the Triple-Lock have prevented the original principle of military neutrality from becoming entirely obsolete, and Ireland should fight for these protections to remain in place. Neutrality and Ireland’s peacekeeping reputation are inextricably linked, so Ireland should ensure the protection of neutrality as the international security landscape evolves.

15 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Ireland’s Commitment to European Defence and the Obstacles This Poses for Neutrality Alexandru Mihalca, Single Honors Law, Junior Freshman Shortlisted for The Eagle Gazette x DU Law Society Essay Competition 2025 Introduction In 1981, Taoiseach Charles Haughey flatly asserted that “political neutrality or non-alignment is incompatible with membership of the Community and with our interests and ideals”. This stance has not diminished by any means today: politicians insist that Irish neutrality is nothing more than a ‘myth’, an accident, an illusion; moreover, that Ireland’s membership of the European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), a framework in the Treaty of Lisbon ratified by referendum held in 2009, has rendered Irish military non-alignment de facto obsolete.

Notwithstanding this, recent opinion polls suggest Irish citizens continue to favour neutrality: four out of five of those asked indicated that active neutrality in global conflicts serves Ireland’s best interests.

Common European Defence Until the seventies, the question of neutrality was silenced. Inevitably, it would return to the fore when Ireland contemplated membership of the European Economic Communities (EEC).

Ireland joined the EEC, which at the time seemed a highly dynamic bloc, in 1973. The question of defensive co-operation was not on the minds of those who voted for accession the year prior. Even so, it was acknowledged that Ireland’s obligations as a Member of the rapidly evolving EEC may create tension around its neutrality in the near future.

Twenty years later, the treaties of Nice and Lisbon paved the way for a Common European Defence.

Notably, both Treaties were initially rejected in referendums by Irish voters due to a lack of protection afforded to neutrality, as well as other issues such as economic harmonisation or abortion. The Irish Government, possibly embarrassed by the apparent failure to ratify these agreements, made reassuring overtures to the public. In the case of neutrality, this was achieved by implementing a Triple Lock System for the deployment of Irish troops.

The Treaty of Lisbon, however, represented an immense leap in terms of Common European Defence.

Article 42§7’s “Mutual Defence Clause” bore a striking resemblance to NATO’s Article 5, stating that “if a Member State is a victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in the power”. This alarmed Irish voters, who feared Ireland would be obligated to intervene in military conflicts. The redeeming feature was the inclusion of an opt-out clause, providing that “this shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States”, no doubt included to 16 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

accommodate states such as Ireland or Austria, whose neutrality (unlike Ireland’s) is enshrined in the Constitution.

In addition, Article 29.4.9° was inserted in the Irish Constitution, stating that “the State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State”. Overall, both safeguards were effective in assuaging citizens’ fears of obligatory military involvement, as evidenced by an approval rate of 67.1 per cent at a second referendum.

Common Security and Defence Policy: incompatible with neutrality?

Notably, the Treaty of Lisbon also implemented the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), a framework fostering a shared European strategic culture. Its evolution, which stagnated following its conception, has accelerated exponentially with the return of war to Europe. The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine forced European nations to evaluate their own defensive capabilities and, indeed, the collective defence of the EU. This applied to Ireland as well. Although Ireland does not boast significant military capabilities – its navy only has six ships and its air corps has no fighter jets – Russian navy exercises conducted off the coast of Ireland in February 2022 served as impetus for evaluating current defence. Considering this, the Government has committed to increasing the defence budget from EUR 1.1 billion to 1.8 billion by 2028.

A by-product of the CSDP is the formation of European Battlegroups (EU BGs). Roughly consisting of 1500 multinational troops, the battlegroups are capable of rapid deployment within 5-10 days, either as part of stand-alone peacekeeping operations or pending a follow-up force. Irish soldiers regularly partake in BG exercises. For 2025, Ireland’s eighth participation since its first commitment to the project, 182 Irish Defence Force (IDF) members will train alongside soldiers from other EU countries in a broad range of domains, from intelligence to logistics.

Despite the fact that EU BGs have rarely been used since achieving full operational capacity back in 2007 the advent of EU BGs presents certain consequences detrimental to Irish neutrality. The Strategic Compass for security and defence (2022), ambitiously aims to improve the EU’s rapid crisis response by converting EU Battlegroups into a flexible Rapid Deployment Capacity (RDC) of 5,000 troops capable of acting “rapidly and robustly whenever a crisis erupts”.

It could mean that, as the Battlegroup structure turns into RDCs, the Irish Government will have to commit an increased number of personnel to sustain such units, irrespective of its own wishes. This is especially alarming if one considers a scenario whereby an EU battlegroup that includes Irish troops deploy to an active warzone; it would amount to participation in a conflict against one side, in flagrant disregard of Irish neutrality.

Conclusion Amid renewed tensions on the European continent, the question of Irish neutrality must now be definitively addressed. In 2024, NATO was enlarged by two Nordic countries, Sweden and Finland, which had previously had long standing neutral statuses. This was in no small part due to a fear caused by Russian expansionism. It is now contended that Ireland ought to follow suit.

Regardless of whether the people would vote for this in an accession referendum, the fact remains that the EU’s Common Defence Policy has evolved to a point where it closely mirrors a military alliance.

17 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Peace and Justice in a Changing World Gareth McCrystal, Single Honors Law, Senior Freshman Shortlisted for The Eagle Gazette x DU Law Society Essay Competition 2025 Ireland’s principle of military neutrality has long been a defining feature of its foreign policy, grounded in the nation’s complex history and its desire to assert an independent voice on the global stage. This neutrality underpins its active engagement in peace support operations, crisis management, and its broader contributions to conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts. It serves as a foundation for Ireland’s commitment to advancing human rights, fostering development, and advocating for disbarment and the eradication of weapons of mass destruction. This policy enhances Ireland’s capacity to promote peace and development on the global stage, enabling meaningful engagement through the United Nations, the European Union, and bilateral initiatives. Importantly, Ireland’s stance on military neutrality is both recognised and respected by its EU partners, with its principles formally enshrined in the Protocol to the Lisbon Treaty. However, modern global and domestic challenges – ranging from shifting geopolitical tensions to Ireland’s increasing integration within the European Union – have raised questions about the relevance and practicality of neutrality in the contemporary era.

Neutrality need not be abandoned entirely but could be adapted to reflect contemporary realities.

Proponents of a redefined neutrality argue that Ireland can maintain its commitment to peace while engaging more activity in collective security arrangements. For example, Ireland could invest in cyber defence and humanitarian operations within the EU framework, aligning its actions with broader European values without compromising its moral principles.

Ireland’s policy of neutrality was formally articulated during World War II, referred to domestically as “The Emergency.” Despite significant pressure from allied forces, Ireland remained steadfastly neutral, a stance motivated by its desire to affirm sovereignty following centuries of British domination. Neutrality became a cornerstone of Irish identity, symbolising independence, moral autonomy, and a preference for diplomatic solutions over military entanglements.

In the post-war era, neutrality was reinforced by Ireland’s commitment to the United Nations, emphasising peacekeeping rather than participation in military alliances like NATO. This approach garnered 18 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

and allowed Ireland to play a mediating role in global conflicts, consistent with its self-image as a “small nation” championing peace and justice.

Growing Scrutiny Despite these noble ideas, Ireland’s neutrality has faced growing scrutiny in recent decades. Critics argue that global challenges, including terrorism, cyber warfare, and Russian aggression in Ukraine, have rendered traditional nations of neutrality inadequate. As the EU developed its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) in the 1990s and 2000s Ireland became part of these frameworks. Ireland’s participation in the EU’s CSDP further complicates its neutral stance, as it increasingly engages in joint military operations and strategic planning with EU partners. Debates on the EU’s Nice and Lisbon treaties in the 2000s thus resulted in ‘guarantees’ by the EU recognizing Ireland’s neutrality.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has placed unprecedented pressure on European states to reassess their security policies. Ireland, though not a NATO member, has condemned Russian actions and provided non-lethal support to Ukraine. The Irish government has argued that while the country is militarily neutral, it is not politically neutral in the context of Russia’s clear act of aggression against Ukraine. This pragmatic response has led some to question whether Ireland’s neutrality is more symbolic than substantive. In an interconnected world, the lines between military and non-military support are increasingly blurred, raising ethical and practical dilemmas for Ireland’s policymakers.

Ireland’s physical security vulnerabilities also expose cracks in its neutral stance. The lack of a robust military infrastructure, coupled with limited cybersecurity capabilities, has made the country reliant on larger powers for protection. Notably, Ireland depends on NATO and the UK for airspace monitoring. Critics argue that neutrality without self-sufficiency risks making Ireland a passive beneficiary of alliances rather than an independent actor in global affairs.

Future Directions Moreover, domestic opinion on neutrality is shifting.

Polls indicate growing public support for closer military cooperation with the EU, particularly among younger generations who view neutrality as a historical relic rather than a pragmatic policy. Opinion polls for many years have indicated strong public support for neutrality and little, if any, support for NATO membership. Various opinion polls since February 2022 have generally re-affirmed this. One June – July 2022 survey, however, suggested 52% public support for

joining NATO and 48% opposition, prompting speculation about a significant shift in Irish opinion.

While a shift towards public support for NATO membership cannot be ruled out, a balanced reading of opinion poll evidence suggests that there remains substantial public support for neutrality and certainly no strong demand for NATO membership.

Ireland’s participation in peacekeeping missions under the UN model illustrates how neutrality can coexist with active global engagement. The Government decides on a case-by case basis whether, when and how to commit personnel to peacekeeping operations. The 'triple lock' of UN authorisation, Government approval, and Dáil approval must be satisfied before the Defence Forces can deploy. Ireland’s largest military deployment currently is with the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Since 1978, a number of Defence Forces officers have also served in different positions at UNHQ, New York.

Expanding such initiatives, particularly in regions affected by climate change and conflict, would reaffirm Ireland’s role as a force for good on the world stage.

Conclusion Ireland’s principle of military neutrality, deeply rooted in its historical quest for sovereignty and its commitment to global peace, remains a defining feature of its foreign policy. However, modern challenges, from political upheavals to emerging security threats, have tested the relevance and adaptability of this stance.

While neutrality has allowed Ireland to champion peacebuilding and contribute meaningfully to international efforts through the UN and EU frameworks, it also raises practical questions about its reliance on external powers for security and its ability to navigate a rapidly changing global landscape.

A redefined approach to neutrality offers Ireland the opportunity to preserve its moral independence while addressing contemporary security demands. By investing in areas such as cybersecurity, peacekeeping, and humanitarian initiatives within EU and UN contexts, Ireland can enhance its contributions to global stability without undermining its core values.

Neutrality need not be abandoned but instead adapted to remain effective in the modern era, ensuring that Ireland continues to play a significant role as a proponent of peace and justice in a changing world.

19 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Lessons from Ireland: Strengthening Abortion Rights Through Clarity and Equality Sophie Eastwood, Single Honors Law, Junior Sophister Introduction The legal landscape of abortion rights has shifted considerably in recent history, most notably with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the 2022 case Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the previous 1973 ruling Roe v Wade and removed federal protections for abortion. Ireland’s experience demonstrates how explicit constitutional language can stabilise rights and enable democratic evolution, while Roe v Wade’s reliance on privacy weakened its foundation. Framing abortion rights in equality, as a legal and moral principle, offers a more enduring approach that reflects lived realities and better withstands judicial reinterpretation.

By comparing Ireland’s legal framework to the U.S., this essay identifies key lessons for securing durable reproductive rights. I argue that grounding these rights in clear, strong textual bases ensures stability and shields them from ideological shifts inherent in judicial philosophy.

The Law in Ireland Ireland’s legal progression of reproductive rights highlights the importance of precise constitutional language. The 1974 decision in McGee v Attorney General recognised an unenumerated constitutional right to privacy for married couples to obtain contraceptives. At the time, legal scholars expressed concerns about judicial activism arising from this ruling, given the structure of the Irish Constitution and ongoing debates about the separation of powers. Some academics argue that when judges recognize rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution, they exceed their judicial role and engage in lawmaking rather than mere interpretation. This debate is further shaped by Ireland’s system of constitutional amendment through referendum. If there is a desire to amend the Constitution, a bill can be passed by a majority vote in both houses of the Oireachtas before being put to the people in a referendum. If a majority of voters approve the amendment, the constitutional text is altered, making constitutional reform comparatively accessible in comparison to other jurisdictions. These concerns about an overreaching judiciary led to a 1983 referendum inserting the Eighth Amendment, enshrining the rights of the unborn and the mother stating: 20 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

While explicit in recognising the rights of the unborn, this language left critical ambiguities that placed a significant interpretative burden on the judiciary.

Courts were often forced to navigate between rigidly adhering to the text, which could lead to deeply unpopular outcomes, or pursuing a "just solution" that required stretching or departing from the amendment's language entirely. For instance, in Attorney General v.

X,7 the Supreme Court initially granted an injunction preventing a 14-year-old rape victim from traveling to the UK for an abortion. The public outrage sparked by this decision eventually led to legal and constitutional reforms in the years following.

In 2018, the Eighth Amendment was repealed through a referendum, and a new provision was added to the Irish Constitution: "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy."

This explicit language clarified the State’s authority to legislate on abortion, providing a more stable and equal framework for reproductive rights while shifting a considerable amount of the discretionary burden away from the judiciary.

What does this history teach us? Most importantly, it shows that language matters. Ambiguous or overly rigid phrasing can lead to unequal application, leaving courts grappling with interpretative dilemmas that may erode public trust. Clear, precise wording rooted in the broader constitutional text is essential to ensure consistency and legitimacy. The Irish experience illustrates how the framing of rights profoundly influences their application and durability, offering valuable lessons for examining the American context, where a referendum is not so readily available.

The Law in the United States Similar to McGee, U.S. abortion law was built on an implied right to privacy. Roe v Wade established that the right to privacy encompassed a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy, drawing from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

This protection was expanded on in Planned Parenthood v Casey, which adopted an “undue burden” standard and grounded abortion rights in the 14th Amendment's substantive due process clause.

This issue was once again revisited in a judgement of the case of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, where the court applied the 14th Amendment's substantive due process test, which asks whether the right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to this Nation’s “scheme of ordered liberty” and found that abortion rights did not meet this test. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion further questioned the validity of privacy-based precedents, signalling broader implications for rights grounded in similar reasoning.

This judgement is especially divergent as it reframes modern constitutional law to be viewed through a lens of what was appropriate in the mid-1800s, leading to a narrow and antiquated interpretation of the text.

Using Irish Legal History to Improve Roe The examination of Ireland's legal history of codifying abortion into law has shown the importance of clarity when writing abortion rights into its Constitution.

Because the United States does not have the same referendum approach as Ireland, instead of suggesting that the U.S. put a right to abortion directly into their constitution, the Irish context can inform ideas of how Roe could have been improved. By examining the weaknesses in Roe’s framing and contrasting it with Ireland’s eventual move toward clearer legal language, we can better understand how abortion rights might be more effectively secured.

I argue that the framing of Roe as a right to liberty weakened the decision, and that the right would have been better situated as a right to equality under the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. Reproductive rights are inherently tied to a woman’s ability to participate in society on an equal footing. When the State restricts a woman’s autonomy in ways not applicable to men, it creates an unequal legal landscape. Conservative abortion policies impact women's economic security, ability to access an education, health, capacity to have children, and mental wellbeing. As Reva Siegel has argued, denying access to abortion impairs women’s ability to assert

their autonomy and dignity, excluding them from full and equal participation in society. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued a similar point in a legal judgement, stating, “legal challenges to undo restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalised notion of privacy; rather, they centre on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.” Both of these points demonstrate how abortion restrictions are not merely private matters but are fundamentally tied to public participation and equality. By grounding abortion rights in equality rather than liberty, Roe could have addressed these systemic inequalities more directly. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court’s reliance on a privacy framework failed to capture the discriminatory realities women face when denied access to reproductive healthcare.

The Irish legal history highlights the consequences of ambiguity and the importance of intentional language.

The transition from the Eighth Amendment to clearer provisions shows how legal reform can strengthen rights and provide more consistent judicial interpretation. Similarly, in the U.S. context, framing abortion rights as a matter of equality would have made the doctrine more durable, as equality-based protections are harder to erode and more deeply entrenched in broader societal values.

Although the conservative majority swiftly rejected this equality argument in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, I argue it was all too quickly put aside. The argument is compelling when considered alongside aforementioned feminist scholarship, which situates abortion rights as essential to achieving equality. While the academic literature is divided on what this equality should look like, one thing is clear: the right to an abortion has a significant base in the principle of equality. If Roe were decided today, I submit that grounding abortion rights in the Equal Protection Clause would be the more appropriate and enduring approach.

Conclusion The comparison between Ireland and the U.S.'s abortion history highlights the importance of clear, explicit legal language in protecting rights. Ireland's move to precise constitutional language in 2018 contrasts with the ambiguity in Roe v Wade, which left abortion rights vulnerable to judicial shifts. The Irish experience shows that grounding abortion rights in equality, rather than privacy, offers a stronger, more durable framework. This approach would better address systemic inequalities and provide a more stable foundation for reproductive rights in the U.S.

21 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

22 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Ukraine’s Legal Response to Conflict-Related Sexual Violence Chloé Feldman, Single Honors Law, Senior Sophister Introduction Conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV), as defined by the United Nations (UN), encompasses rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced abortion, forced marriage, and other forms of sexual violence of comparable gravity that are directly or indirectly linked to conflict. A crime that is both preventable and punishable under International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law, and International Law, CRSV is used to target civilians, primarily women and girls, triggering trauma, humiliation, and displacement. While historically CRSV has been considered of lesser importance than other atrocities committed during times of conflict, the sheer scale of victimisation underscores the need for greater international attention. For instance, an estimated 250,000 and 500,000 women were victims of rape during the Rwanda genocide, 60,000 during the Balkan conflict, and nearly 60,000 during the Sierra Leone civil war. The prevalence of CRSV continues to rise globally due to ongoing armed conflicts, including the war in Ukraine, which this article will examine.

In response to increasing reports of sexual violence, Ukraine’s parliament has recently adopted a law to codify the definition of CRSV in national legislation.

This initiative seeks to ensure reparations and institutional support for survivors of sexual violence committed since February 20, 2014. The law formally acknowledges the status of CRSV survivors and provides them with legal, medical, and psychological assistance. While this legislative development is a necessary step towards addressing the issue, many Ukrainian rights groups argue that the law is long overdue and that significant gaps remain in addressing survivors’ challenges.

CRSV in the Context of the Russia-Ukraine War Between Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, and 31 August 2024, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine documented 376 cases of CRSV. Among these survivors, 262 were men, 102 were women, 10 were girls, and 2 were boys, indicating that male victims, primarily detainees in occupied territories or within the Russian Federation, constitute the majority. This figure stands in stark contrast to findings from the NGO Justice for Peace in Donbas, which, in 2017, reported that one in three women and one in four men had either suffered or

witnessed sexual violence perpetrated by security forces on both sides of the conflict. Similarly, the deputy director of the Lisova Poliana Mental Health and Rehabilitation Center has estimated that at least half of the former detainees, both military and civilian, reported experiences of sexual violence. These discrepancies highlight the difficulty in accurately quantifying CRSV due to underreporting and stigma.

Documented methods of sexual violence against male prisoners of war (POWs) include forced nudity during “welcome beatings”, gratuitous stripping, and naked “crouch walking”, as types of everyday abuse designed to dehumanise and exert control. The stigma around CRSV is one of the main barriers for victims to report their accounts, particularly among male survivors.

While female victims frequently refrain from reporting due to lengthy and traumatising proceedings, male survivors often remain silent due to feelings of shame.

Long-term consequences of unaddressed CRSV are severe, leading to increased rates of domestic violence and suicide among victims. Therefore, Ukraine finally codifying CRSV in national law is a step in the right direction.

An Overview of Ukraine’s CRSV Legislation Expected to come into effect in early 2025, the Law on Legal and Social Protection of the Rights of Victims of Sexual Violence Related to the Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, and Urgent Interim Reparations (No. 10132), is a survivor-centric law offering access to various forms of reparations.

Developed by Ukrainian MP Maryna Bardina in collaboration with the Global Survivors Funds, as well as other representatives, the legislation positions Ukraine as the first country to implement urgent reparations for CRSV survivors during an ongoing conflict. Reparations may include psychological support, medical care, and compensation.

Implications for Ukraine and Beyond Historically, Ukraine’s domestic legal framework has not addressed CRSV adequately, with survivors encountering systemic obstacles within the criminal justice system. Prior to the recent legislative advancement, survivors had to seek assistance from state bodies and various organisations. Now, the new law offers a more comprehensive approach. While several Ukrainian advocacy groups approve of the law, the ongoing challenges faced by CRSV survivors within the justice system should not be ignored. Reports indicate that survivors often endure multiple interviews, furthering trauma, while limited access to legal representation discourages reporting, which calls for the need to incorporate a more trauma-informed approach from law enforcement to encourage victims’ reportings.

While it is difficult to assess the gaps in this new piece of legislation before it is fully implemented, Ukrainian rights groups, as well as international bodies, should continue to supervise the implementation, calling on ways to better support victims.

Conclusion CRSV has long been a taboo subject among legislatures, often pushed to the periphery of wartime

justice. Ukraine has become the first country to implement urgent reparations for survivors of CRSV during an ongoing conflict, an important step forward.

Beyond the immediate impact on survivors in Ukraine, this legislation also sets a standard for the international community regarding the need to acknowledge CRSV and take proactive stances toward it. While long overdue, this initiative offers hope by setting a new standard for accountability and survivor support in conflict settings.

23 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

A Political Earthquake: The Cancellation of the Romanian Presidential Elections Raina Bosniac, Single Honors Law, Junior Sophister Introduction Romania’s political history has been marked by turbulence, from its communist past to its transition to democracy after the December 1989 revolution. This transition has not been without challenges and it is only in recent years that the country has truly begun to distance itself from its communist past. The first postcommunist presidential election serves as an example of this tough transition. With Ion Iliescu winning 85% of the vote, many suspected electoral fraud reminiscent of communist times, but his win could also be attributed to the fact that the opposition had a fragmented leadership and failed to unify around a single candidate, allowing Iliescu to capitalise on widespread disillusionment and his own momentum.

Now, 35 years after the downfall of the communist bloc, Romania faces another political crisis: the annulment of its recent presidential election. Since 1989, the country has been relatively stable, enjoying the support of the EU since its adherence to the Union in 2007 and experiencing one of the highest economic growths in the EU since 2010. However, many fear the current political landscape will cause turmoil. The most recent presidential election in December 2024 was not expected to be anything out of the ordinary, however the Constitutional Court’s decision to cancel the first round of the election has sparked controversy among politicians and observers alike.

The Unexpected Rise of Calin Georgescu In order to understand the concern prevalent throughout the country, we must look at who Calin Georgescu is, the candidate no one - especially the polls - saw coming. Despite his obscurity, Georgescu managed to gain 22% of votes in the first round of the election. Georgescu, a 62-year-old agricultural engineer, was formerly a long time member of the farright party, Alliance for the Unity of Romanians (AUR), but ran independently after no longer being part of the AUR since 2022. His support for controversial members of the Iron Guard and member of other far-right organisations triggered an investigation into other remarks he had made, as he was suspected of publicly promoting individuals guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. This ultimately led to his departure from AUR after party leader George Simion distanced himself from Georgescu’s anti-Semitic views.

24 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

He can be best described as a fringe politician, holding a doctorate in soil science and having held various positions in the Environment Ministry in the 1990s, after which he was the Romanian Representative on the UN Environment Programme.

More concerning than his lack of political experience is his reputation as a conspiracy theorist. He has made numerous questionable remarks, having openly said that COVID-19 was not real because he had not seen it, and made his distrust in the vaccine very clear on multiple occasions. Furthermore, his discourse during his campaign was strongly anti-NATO, having once called a NATO missile defence shield in southern Romania a ‘shame on diplomacy’. He has also openly opposed Romania’s staunch support of Ukraine since February 2022 and, when asked for his opinion on Vladimir Putin, proceeded to call him ‘a patriot’ who did what was best for this country.

A Rigged Election or Foreign Interference?

Many have questioned how Georgescu, previously an unknown figure to many Romanians at home and abroad, was able to gain such significant support.

Following his unexpected success, an investigation was launched, which shed light on several troubling aspects of his campaign. The primary issue concerns campaign funding. Each presidential candidate is required to publish a declaration of wealth, but Georgescu’s contained inconsistencies when compared to publicly available records of his assets.

Furthermore, during the course of the investigation it came to light that one of Georgescu’s backers, who had contributed 1 million euro to his campaign, was strongly suspected of money laundering. While these financial irregularities prompted scrutiny, it was the execution of his campaign which was most worrisome.

In contrast to the other candidates’ campaigns, Georgescu mainly ran his through TikTok. This alone would not have been an issue, had it not been for classified documents which later revealed that almost 800 TikTok accounts created by a ‘foreign state’ in 2016 were suddenly activated a month before the election. These accounts then proceeded to post content solely related to Georgescu and his campaign. While the Court has not disclosed who this foreign actor is, Romanian foreign intelligence said Russia was the ‘enemy state’ involved and engaged in thousands of cyber attacks.

Reactions Reactions to the Court’s decision have been mixed.

Elena Lasconi, for instance, who was meant to run against Georgecsu in the second round of the election, called this decision a shame on democracy and Simion,

party leader of AUR, said it was a coup. Marcel Ciolacu, leader of the Social Democrats, said that the cancellation was the only right decision following the findings regarding Georgescu’s campaign. Georgescu himself gave multiple interviews following this event, during which he notably looked very stressed and angry, while strongly emphasizing that he had no ties to Russia.

More recently he appeared on the podcast of the famous conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Again, he dismissed allegations that he was connected to Moscow, but he did tell Jones that the EU wanted to take control of NATO. What he meant by this is unclear, but he continued by saying that NATO imposes too many rules on member states and is pushing for a Third World War in Eastern Europe, which according to him would not be possible without Romania’s adherence to the organization. Georgescu has lodged complaints in relation to the cancellation of the election with the Romanian Constitutional Court and the ECHR, the latter of which was to ask for the result of the election to be reinstated as an interim

measure. Both petitions have been thrown out by the respective courts.

What’s Next for Romania?

The question that plagues many Romanians today is whether Georgescu will be allowed to run in the next election, which has been rescheduled to May 2025.

Despite this controversy, he continues to ride high in polls and, unless he is disqualified by the Constitutional Court, he will most likely run again. If he does, the events from December will probably play to his advantage. As much of his discourse was based on the idea that politics is riddled with corruption and nepotism, he has the opportunity to portray himself as a victim in front of the electorate, pushed aside by the old guard. He also carries with him many frustrations towards the current political landscape in Romania, which will in turn win him many votes. If he does run again, it is safe to say that he will most certainly make it into the second round of the election. It is important to note that even if Georgescu does win, he will be kept in check by Parliament. While he is seen as a threat to Romania’s position in the EU and NATO, under Georgescu, the country would most likely follow in the footsteps of Hungary and Slovakia, both of which are Russia sympathisers but still strongly involved with the EU.

25 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Rethinking Compensation in the Law of Tort Ryan Hickey, Single Honors Law, Senior Sophister Introduction Tort law has been widely criticised for being packed with ideological assumptions that we have accepted at face value and indeed, this article recognises our current system as deeply flawed. However, instead of campaigning to get rid of ‘compensation’ just yet, the focus of this article is to put forward a theoretical framework of compensation that would address many of the existing issues while maintaining faith in this commonplace judicial remedy. Therefore, this article is a response to the following question: how can we improve compensation’?

A Reviewed Model of Compensation.

Compensation can take various forms - for example, awards of general damages which are assessed on the basis of the “pain and suffering” experienced by the victim as a result of the wrongdoing. A plaintiff may also be granted ‘special damages’ to compensate for consequential losses such as loss of earnings and medical expenses.

This article proposes a new theoretical model for the granting of compensation which is influenced by mechanisms such as the ‘Accident Compensation Corporation’ (ACC) in New Zealand and those employed by independent state agencies such as the Workplace Relations Commission. For the sake of clarity, let’s call the proposed model the ‘Torts Remedial Board’ (TRB). Much like the WRC, it would function as an independent statutory body, funded by the state and with quasi-judicial powers. Much like the ACC, the TRB would have jurisdiction over injuryrelated claims but with the caveat that compensation would be awarded to a victim following a quasi-judicial hearing.

The TRB would retain an adjudicatory function that adheres to the concept of “accountability”. Holding a wrongdoer accountable for their actions offers value for both the wrongdoer and the victim. Firstly, it forces wrongdoers to reflect on the event and will deter them from taking a similar course of action in the future.

This becomes even more important where the wrongdoer is an entity as opposed to an individual. It is imperative that the power imbalance that exists between entities and individuals is not exacerbated by allowing a company, for example, to get away with injuring an individual without accepting responsibility.

26 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Secondly, the fact that the wrongdoer is being held liable has a vindicatory function for plaintiffs. Some would argue that a ‘no-fault’ based model like the ACC is more effective and that we should leave the issue of ‘blame’ to the regulatory and criminal justice systems.

However, accountability is too important to be left to the discretion of a victim. In a system of compensation awarded on a ‘no-fault’ basis, a victim may very well “take their money and run” and opt against pursuing a claim with the sole purpose of holding the defendant accountable.

The concept of general damages is a problematic one within our current system of compensation. The courts have long struggled with the framework of general damages as there can be no exact measurement of what amounts to a proportionate award. This results in the granting of arbitrary sums to victims. This challenge was demonstrated in Nolan v Murphy, a case in which the High Court initially awarded a sum of €600,000 which was then reduced by the Supreme Court to €350,000. Both sums were awarded on a non-principled basis and were merely reflections of what the court subjectively deemed appropriate in the circumstances.

Dorfman points out an inherent inequality in awarding damages based on “pain and suffering,” highlighting the lingering threat that a defendant may be liable for colossal sums of money as a result of a momentary lapse in judgement.

As a response to the inherent defects associated with the award of general damages, the TRB would award compensation for what are effectively special damages, i.e. lost earnings, the cost of medical treatment, and other out-of-pocket expenses. The exclusion of general damages avoids some of the unfairness and arbitrariness in awarding compensation and helps to prevent situations arising whereby defendants are held liable for sums of money grossly exceeding the extent of their wrongdoing. Furthermore, special damages can be calculated more objectively and can be fairly awarded on a consistent basis.

The issue of the “poor defendant” is at the forefront of the argument that the remedies provided by tort law can be ineffective means of compensating plaintiffs.

Taking Nolan as an example, we can see that, while the defendant in that case was held liable for a large sum of money, the victim was in a sense fortunate that the wrongdoer had the money to pay them. In instances where large awards are granted, the efficacy of the award is therefore determined by whether the plaintiff has been lucky enough to be harmed by a defendant with deep pockets.

To avoid this, the proposed TRB would be provided with the fundings to compensate victims in situations

where the defendant lacks the means to do so. In this scenario, the victim of wrongdoing walks away compensated and the plaintiff is not denied thor remedy based on a technicality. The defendant would then be liable to the TRB for the amount compensated to the plaintiff. This could be pursued in various ways– potentially through separate civil proceedings or an administrative procedure subject to judicial review. A more creative and effective solution would be to hold the estate of the wrongdoer liable, in which case, outstanding debts would be repaid upon the death of the tortfeasor.

This proposal is a novel idea and a hybrid mix of various existing legal mechanisms. On a theoretical level, the model would have to be subject to a constitutional analysis to prevent a potential usurpation of judicial power. A benefit of the model is that it grants the state the power to pick and choose which defendants should be liable to repay their debts.

This means that, while a large proportion of defendants will be held accountable, not all will. Practically speaking, it is highly likely that this mechanism would run at a financial loss given that, in many cases, a mere fraction of the original debt would be repaid.

A Critical Analysis of This Model In terms of its benefits, the proposed TRB model is one which seeks to ensure that defendants take accountability and responsibility for their actions–a value that lies at the very core of tort law. It is morally wrong and contrary to social justice to allow wrongdoers to hide behind a ‘no-fault’ model of compensation. Practically speaking, this system also alleviates pressure on the civil courts and, as a result, will expedite the resolution of claims. As funding is provided by the state, plaintiffs are assured that they will be compensated fully if their claim succeeds.

Conclusion This article has attempted to propose a new model for the granting of compensation that could ultimately improve the system we currently have in place. This model, at least to some extent, holds society financially responsible for the wrongdoing of others. Our current system of compensation is not working effectively and this needs to be remedied. However, instead of instinctively looking to find a replacement for one of law’s most commonplace judicial remedies, it is worthwhile to investigate whether there are steps we can take to try and fix it. These suggestions may be somewhere to start.

27 | The Eagle Volume 11 Issue 2

Founded in 2014 by Clare Kelly, The Eagle Gazette is a vibrant student gazette that is at the forefront of generating social and political awareness in Trinity College Dublin. Our core mission is to engage students with a range of political-legal issues by providing them with an accessible forum to write journalistic-style articles that are both educational and engaging. We aim to promote critical discussion of issues that lie at the intersection of law and politics, the environment, economics, business, feminism, science, technology, and a range of other disciplines. Submissions for our blog, as well as our print issues, are therefore open to students from all courses.

If you are interesting in submitting, contact us at eaglegazette.tcd@gmail.com. Alternatively, visit our website at https://eaglegazette.wordpress.com/ for more information.

The Eagle Gazette