As the Government moves ahead with legislation to remove the triple lock requiring government, Dáil and United Nations (UN) approval before deployment of Defence Forces personnel on peacekeeping missions, not enough attention has been paid to other options.

There has been little discussion about the UN alternatives that could help to circumvent Security Council paralysis.

In recent years, increased tensions among the big powers have spilled over into all UN activities. This is most starkly evident in the Security Council, and has stymied the UN’s ability to respond to international crises and led to failure to approve or renew peacekeeping operations.

But there are other ways to obtain UN approval for peacekeeping within the UN charter when the Security Council is unwilling or unable to fulfil its primary role.

Simon Harris outlines more details on new savings scheme to encourage Irish households to invest

‘Get to the back of the queue or leave the station’: Train users on Irish Rail inflexibility

Appeals lodged against Cillian Murphy and Yvonne McGuinness’s cinema refurb plan

Denis Donaldson: Man charged with murder of former IRA member

The charter does not expressly mention peacekeeping, but it provides the legal framework for all peacekeeping activities. The fundamental principles of peacekeeping have developed over time through practise, with the result that all peacekeeping activities are somewhat malleable.

International peace and security are not the exclusive domain of the Security Council. Key to an understanding of this are the primary aims of the UN and the imprecise relationship of the Security Council and General Assembly.

Although both the council and assembly have competence over peacekeeping, the norm is for a force to be mandated by the Security Council. When the council is unable to act, an issue can be transferred to the assembly for approval. The assembly has far greater representation and legitimacy within the UN system.

In the past, the assembly played an important role in international peace and security and it has clear competence under the UN charter to make recommendations on these issues. One of the ways it did this was to apply pressure on the Security Council to undertake peacekeeping operations. When that pressure does not achieve the desired results and in the absence of council action, the assembly has exceptional secondary competence to mandate peacekeeping forces.

Under the assembly’s Uniting for Peace resolution adopted in 1950, it is empowered to recommend collective measures whenever the Security Council is gridlocked. Both the council and assembly have successfully invoked this procedure a number of times since.

[ Two Unifil peacekeepers killed in LebanonOpens in new window ]

The assembly, in this way, assumed a residual responsibility for maintaining international peace and security while acknowledging the primary role of the Security Council and the overall responsibility of member states and the UN for peace and security. In effect, the assembly was asserting a right to step in and recommend collective measures when the council failed to act.

Although it has been approved as a mechanism by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Uniting for Peace process is severely weakened by the requirement for the support of a majority of states in the General Assembly. During the crisis in Kosovo in 1999, western states could have invoked it but did not do so. Likewise, during the 2003 Iraq crisis, the US did not pursue it. In both instances, there was a real likelihood of not achieving the necessary votes in the General Assembly to allow the resolution to pass.

The Uniting for Peace resolution mechanism has, however, been used by the assembly on a number of occasions – to establish what is generally regarded as the first UN peacekeeping force, UNEF, in 1956, and again renewing approval for the peacekeeping mission to the Congo (ONUC) in 1960.

The ICJ has also affirmed that when the UN takes action in pursuit of its aims – in this case through the General Assembly – there is a presumption that such action is lawful. Action supported by a large majority of members in the General Assembly has a high degree of legitimacy.

This would go some way to address the criticism that approval of peace operations often conceals the political decision-making that determines where and how the UN intervenes. The accusation is that it may reinforce global hierarchies rather than transcend them. Failure to act often reflects political priorities rather than operational constraints, revealing the central conflict between the UN’s goals and the reality of its subjugation to powerful member state interests.

The General Assembly can recommend military measures even when, in its opinion, binding enforcement measures should be taken by the Security Council. Opposition to initiatives taken by the General Assembly are usually political and based on the grounds that they challenge the primary role of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security.

[ Should Ireland keep the triple lock?Opens in new window ]

Many UN peacekeeping operations involve partnerships with other actors, or are delegated to regional organisations such as the African Union, the EU or Nato. The triple lock does not preclude our participation in these missions once UN approval is agreed.

The international system is broken and needs a sustained campaign to restore the primacy of the UN, diplomacy and international law. According to the 2015 High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations, lasting peace is not achieved nor sustained by military and technical engagements, but through political solutions.

Ireland has had many diplomatic successes at the UN. The principal challenge is not to draft a better charter: it is to make the best use of the charter we have. Instead of turning its back on the need for UN approval to participate in peacekeeping, Ireland should now try to muster other members of the General Assembly to defend the UN and keep peace operations going.

Prof Ray Murphy is with the Irish Centre for Human Rights in the School of Law, University of Galway

© The Irish Times