Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 May 1930

Vol. 35 No. 2

Approval of Conventions and Protocols. - Poisonous Gases in War.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. McGilligan)

I move:—

"Go gceaduíonn an Dáil an Dreacht-chonnra chun a Thoirmease feidhm do bhaint as Geasanna Múchtacha no Geasanna Nimhe no Geasanna eile no Modhanna Cogaidh Bactereólaíochta i gCoga (1925) dar leagadh cóip ar Bhord na Dála ar an 12adh lá d'Fheabhra, 1930, agus go molann don Ard-Chomhairle gach ní is gá do dhéanamh chun aontú leis an Dreacht-chonnra san fé réir na gcoiníoll so leanas, viz.:

(1) ná fuil Saorstát Eireann ceangailte ag an Dreacht-chonnra ach vis-a-vis na Stát eile sin atá tar éis an Dreacht-chonnra do shighniú agus do dhaingniú no tar éis aontú leis;

(2) má thugann fórsaí armtha aon Stáit naimhdigh no aon chongantóra don Stát san faillí sa Dreacht-chonnra go scuirfidh Saorstát Eireann de bheith ceangailte ag an Dreacht-chonnra vis-a-vis an Stáit sin."

"That the Dáil approves of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the use in war of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (1925), a copy of which was laid on the Table of the Dáil on the 12th day of February, 1930, and recommends the Executive Council to take the necessary steps to accede to the said Protocol subject to the following reservations, viz.:

(1) that Saorstát Eireann is bound by the Protocol only vis-a-vis those other States which have signed and ratified the Protocol or acceded thereto;

(2) that in the event of the armed forces of any enemy State or of any ally of such State failing to respect the Protocol, Saorstát Eireann shall cease to be bound by the Protocol vis-a-vis such State."

The Protocol referred to is one of the most humanitarian of those which have come from the League of Nations and there is no necessity to go into any details about it. We were not a signatory to it at the beginning. It is proposed that we should notify the French Government of our accession. About 29 States signed at the beginning, but only seventeen of them have either ratified or acceded up to a recent date. We propose two obvious reservations: (1) that we are bound by the Protocol only vis-a-vis those other States which have signed and ratified the Protocol or acceded thereto, and (2)—which is a most unlikely contingency—that in the event of any State which signs failing to respect the Protocol then we cease to be bound by it vis-a-vis such State.

Mr. Lemass

I should be glad if the Minister would tell us how it was thought right to have these reservations to this Protocol: (1) that the Saorstát is bound only vis-a-vis those other States which have signed and ratified the Protocol or acceded thereto, and (2) that in the event of the armed forces of any enemy State or of any ally of such State failing to respect the Protocol, Saorstát Eireann shall cease to be bound by the Protocol vis-a-vis such State. If the Government are satisfied that the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases in warfare is not right, it does not become right when some other State proceeds to use them. Obviously the reason why it is desirable that the use of this particular method of warfare should be prohibited is because it is liable to inflict damage upon persons who are not actual combatants; in other words the harm it does cannot be confined to those actually engaged in the combat. If it is wrong to use asphyxiating gas in war, the State I think should be willing to declare its intention of not using it under any circumstances whatsoever. Why such reservations were considered necessary I do not know, and I should be glad if the Minister would tell us.

Mr. McGilligan

The reservations are considered necessary because the particular Protocol is phrased in a peculiar way. Nearly everything which emanates from Geneva is put in the form of a definite undertaking, and the people who sign have before them what they are signing and the people towards whom they are bound. This is put in the form of a general declaration. The word which precedes the whole resolution is "declare." The declaration, therefore, limits the thing to a certain extent; at least it makes it rather vague, and it is desirable to know what our obligations are exactly towards other people. What would happen is a different thing. The reservations state that we are not bound to this in the case of two particular events spoken of. I should like to point out to the Deputy, however, that there is no such thing expressed as the view which he has expressed. The preamble reads:

"Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world; and

"Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the world are parties; and

"To the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations;"

It does not follow because we put in the two reservations that in the two exceptional cases spoken of the use of asphyxiating gas and of bacteriological methods of warfare will be considered as right and proper. It is only that there will be no obligation binding in International Law on the State vis-a-vis these people. It is considered right that we should have the exact obligation limited in that way.

Question put and agreed to.