A joint written submission was presented to the Irish parliament’s Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade by the Ireland Israel Alliance (IIA) and UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), raising significant legal challenges regarding proposed trade legislation.
The submission was signed by Jonathan Turner, Chief Executive of UK Lawyers for Israel, and Jackie Goodall, Executive Director of the Ireland Israel Alliance, which argued that the legislation is incompatible with both European Union law and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Published as a General Scheme in June 2025, the Irish government’s Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill seeks to ban imports from Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Framed as a response to the July 2024 International Court of Justice advisory opinion, the legislation aims to align state trade practices with international legal obligations.
The UKLFI and IIA submission contends that the proposed bill constitutes a “unilateral Irish measure” that is “incompatible with the EU’s Common Commercial Policy,” an area where the EU maintains exclusive competence.
Addressing the government’s reliance on the July 2024 International Court of Justice advisory opinion, the authors argued that this opinion “is not binding and is based on inaccurate information,” and further noted that it “does not advise that a State must ban, or even may ban, the import of goods.”
Furthermore, the submission emphasizes that even if there had been a failure by EU bodies, “this would not justify unilateral action by Ireland within a field of exclusive EU competence,” adding that Ireland should instead “challenge their conduct in the EU Court of Justice.”
Challenge points out double standard in bill
The authors also examine potential government reliance on the “public policy” exception under EU regulations, noting that this provision can only apply where there is a “genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.”
They assert that it “cannot realistically be claimed” that importing goods from parts of the West Bank meets this test, pointing out that the bill would penalize “Palestinians, other nationals, and also Israelis who have not settled in the West Bank.”
To underline the inconsistency of this argument, the submission highlights a clear double standard, noting that the claim is heavily contradicted by the “lack of any prohibition on the import of goods from Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus, territories under unlawful occupation in which the occupying powers have settled large numbers of their own civilian populations.”
They added that, conversely, the “Irish government itself invests in companies that operate in these territories and the Irish Stock Exchange facilitates investment in such companies.”
Building on these contradictions, the report argued that far from helping Palestinians, the legislation would actually harm them economically. Israeli businesses operating in the region help enable self-determination and economic viability by employing many Palestinians in relatively well-paid jobs while actively promoting mutual understanding between their Palestinian and Israeli staff.
From an international trade perspective, the submission argues that prohibiting the importation of settlement goods constitutes a “quantitative restriction and a rejection of most-favored-nation treatment” barred under the GATT.
While analyzing the exception for measures “necessary to protect public morals” under Article XX(a) of the GATT, the authors maintained that the bill fails to satisfy the required process of “weighing and balancing” a series of factors established by the World Trade Organization’s case law.
g and balancing" a series of factors established by WTO case law. Additionally, they caution that singling out the region alone "would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail."
Bill may have severe secondary consequences
Additionally, they cautioned that singling out the region alone “would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail.”
The authors also warn of severe secondary consequences and reputational hazards. If enacted, opponents could argue that the law’s adoption was driven by “widespread antisemitism in Ireland” rather than by genuine public policy, inviting damaging international publicity and undermining broader policy objectives.
Furthermore, the legislation exposes private companies to severe international boomerang effects, drawing a direct parallel to the fallout when Airbnb attempted to delist West Bank properties and immediately faced heavy retaliatory economic sanctions from US states such as Florida, Illinois, and Texas, alongside multiple civil rights lawsuits before ultimately reversing the policy.
The IIA and UKLFI concluded their submission by offering further written and oral evidence to assist the committee in evaluating the legislation from a critical legal perspective.