The provision of landing and overflight services to the US does not mean that Ireland is a belligerent in the war in Iraq, the Attorney General has said.Mr Rory Brady said in a legal opinion to the Government that there was no obligation to withdraw services because the US had attacked Iraq in the absence of a UN resolution.
A summary of the opinion was included in the text of the speech delivered to the Dáil yesterday by the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, although he did not read it into the record.
While the disclosure of such advice is unusual, a Government spokeswoman there were precedents for the publication of summaries of legal opinion. She said she was unable to release the full text of Mr Brady's opinion.
The Attorney General said there was "no generally recognised principle of international law that would require Ireland to now withdraw these permissions".
He said this view was supported by the fact that other states were granting overflight permissions or landing facilities while there was doubt about authorisation by the UN.
The summary said the provision of landing service at Shannon airport and overflight rights did not amount to participation in war within the meaning of Articles 28 (3) and 29 (3) of the Constitution.
Article 28 (3) says "the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann".
Article 29 (3) says "Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other states".
The summary opinion was criticised by Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Michael D. Higgins, who said in his speech that the advice was "off the wall".
He said later that he regarded the reference to Article 29 (3) as an "audacious assertion". "He's on his own on that one."
The summary opinion said: "There is a clear distinction between the legality of Ireland granting these permissions, and providing these facilities on the one hand, and the legality in international law of the proposed armed conflict in Iraq on the other. They raise separate and distinct issues."
It continued: "There is a division of legal opinion on, and doubts as to, the legality of the proposed armed conflict in Iraq. However, the legal position of the US and the UK on such a conflict cannot be dismissed.
"The absence of a further UN resolution on authorisation of military action does not itself determine that the US and UK legal position is not sustainable."
