Where is this event taking place?

This event is scheduled to take place in Dublin, IRL.

What is the primary focus of the event?

The event focuses on IRL's role in an era of global uncertainty, specifically examining international law, human rights, and global security.

Is there a specific format for this event?

The event is described as a conference, suggesting a format that includes presentations and discussions on the specified themes.

Ireland’s Role in an era of Global Uncertainty: International Law, Human Rights and Global Security

Name: Ireland’s Role in an era of Global Uncertainty: International Law, Human Rights and Global Security
Start: 2026-05-07T00:00:00Z
End: 2026-05-07T00:00:00Z
Location: Dublin

May 7, 2026Dublin, IrelandIn-person

Registration open

This event, hosted in Dublin, IRL, focuses on the multifaceted role of IRL in navigating contemporary global challenges. It brings together experts to discuss the intersections of international law, human rights, and global security, particularly in an era marked by significant uncertainty. The discussions aim to explore how IRL's unique diplomatic stance and historical commitments can contribute to stability and justice on the international stage.

Committees & topics

Topics
International Law in an Era of Contested Order · Human Rights Under Pressure · Global Security in a Multipolar Era · The Future of Multilateral Institutions · The United Nations at a Crossroads · Humanitarianism in Crisis · Reform and Paralysis of the UN Security Council · Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution

Why it matters

In a period characterized by geopolitical shifts and evolving threats, understanding the contributions of states like IRL to international norms and security frameworks is crucial. This event provides a platform to analyze how principles of international law and human rights can be upheld and advanced amidst complex global dynamics. It highlights the importance of dialogue and collaboration in addressing issues that transcend national borders, from humanitarian crises to conflicts.

The discussions are particularly relevant for policymakers, academics, and practitioners interested in the future of international relations. By examining IRL's perspective, attendees can gain insights into the challenges and opportunities for smaller states to influence global governance. The event underscores the enduring relevance of international legal frameworks and human rights principles as cornerstones of a stable and just world order.

How to prepare

To prepare for this event, participants should familiarize themselves with IRL's foreign policy objectives and its historical engagement with international law and human rights. Understanding the country's contributions to peacekeeping, its advocacy for disarmament, and its stance on various international conflicts will provide valuable context. Researching recent developments in international law and human rights, especially those pertaining to global security, will also be beneficial.

Consider how different interpretations of international law and human rights can lead to varied national responses to global crises. Engaging with materials that explore the concept of state sovereignty versus humanitarian intervention, or the challenges of enforcing international judgments, will deepen understanding. Participants might also benefit from reviewing case studies where international law has been successfully applied, or where its limitations have become apparent. This foundational knowledge will enable more informed participation in the discussions.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 1 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Ireland

Advocates for multilateralism, international law, and human rights as pillars of global stability.

Role in topic

IRL has a long-standing tradition of neutrality and active participation in international organizations, often championing human rights and the rule of law. Its diplomatic efforts frequently focus on conflict resolution, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid, reflecting a commitment to these principles in its foreign policy.

Topics & background

The background behind each topic and the actors that shape it.

International Law in an Era of Contested Order

The post-1945 international legal order, anchored in the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and a dense web of treaty regimes, was designed to constrain state behavior through prohibitions on the use of force, protections for civilians, and binding dispute-resolution mechanisms. For decades this order expanded — with the creation of the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court (established by the 1998 Rome Statute), and specialized regimes covering the law of the sea, trade, and arms control. Ireland, a small state with a strong common-law tradition, has historically been one of its most consistent defenders, contributing jurists to international tribunals and championing treaty-based dispute resolution. That order is now under acute strain. Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine constituted the most overt breach of the Charter's Article 2(4) prohibition on the use of force by a permanent member of the Security Council in decades. South Africa's 2023 genocide case against Israel at the ICJ, the ICC's arrest warrants against Russian, Israeli, and Hamas officials, and the ICJ's 2024 advisory opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory have all tested compliance and enforcement. Powerful states have increasingly signaled selective engagement — sanctioning ICC officials, ignoring provisional measures, or invoking self-defense doctrines that stretch traditional thresholds. The core dispute today is whether international law remains a genuinely universal framework or is hardening into a tool wielded asymmetrically against weaker states. Debates center on the legitimacy of international courts, the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, the legal status of unilateral sanctions, and how to close the accountability gap when permanent Security Council members shield themselves or allies. Ireland, as a vocal middle power, has emphasized fidelity to the rules-based order even when politically costly.

Key players

Human Rights Under Pressure

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the twin 1966 Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights established a framework that has since expanded to cover torture, racial discrimination, women's rights, the rights of the child, and most recently the right to a healthy environment (GA Resolution 76/300, 2022). The UN Human Rights Council, established in 2006, and its Universal Periodic Review remain the central political forums, complemented by treaty bodies and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The contemporary landscape is marked by significant backsliding. Freedom House and V-Dem have documented nearly two decades of consecutive democratic decline. Civic space is shrinking in many regions; journalists, human rights defenders, and LGBTQ+ communities face escalating threats. New challenges have also emerged: generative AI raises questions about freedom of expression and non-discrimination, climate displacement creates protection gaps unaddressed by the 1951 Refugee Convention, and armed conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, and Myanmar have produced civilian casualties on a scale that has overwhelmed accountability mechanisms. The central dispute is between a universalist conception of human rights and competing claims of cultural relativism, sovereignty, and developmental priority. Ireland has historically been active on issues including reproductive rights, the abolition of the death penalty, and the protection of human rights defenders, and currently faces scrutiny — as do many European states — over its own treatment of asylum seekers amid record migration flows.

Key players

Global Security in a Multipolar Era

The post-Cold War security architecture rested on assumptions of declining great-power conflict, expanding arms-control regimes, and the gradual diffusion of liberal norms. Those assumptions have collapsed. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, China's accelerating military build-up and pressure on Taiwan, the war in Gaza and its regional spillover into Lebanon, Yemen, and the Red Sea, and the civil war in Sudan have together produced the highest level of state-based armed conflict since 1945, according to PRIO and Uppsala datasets. Arms-control regimes — the INF Treaty, Open Skies, and the suspension of New START obligations — have unwound, while no successor frameworks have emerged. New domains have also become contested. Cyber operations against critical infrastructure, the militarization of outer space, the proliferation of armed drones, and debates over lethal autonomous weapons systems have outpaced regulatory frameworks. Hybrid threats — disinformation, election interference, undersea cable sabotage — blur the line between peace and conflict. Ireland, as a militarily neutral but politically Western-aligned state, has confronted these challenges directly: Russian naval activity off its coast, cyberattacks on the Health Service Executive, and a national debate over the constitutional 'triple lock' on overseas troop deployments. The core question is whether collective security can be reconstituted in a fragmented multipolar order, or whether security will increasingly be pursued through competing alliance blocs, minilateral coalitions, and unilateral deterrence.

Key players

The Future of Multilateral Institutions

The web of multilateral institutions created in the 1940s — the UN, Bretton Woods bodies, the GATT (now WTO) — was supplemented over subsequent decades by regional organizations (EU, AU, ASEAN, OAS), specialized agencies, and informal groupings (G7, G20, BRICS). These bodies have delivered substantial public goods: eradicating smallpox, coordinating responses to financial crises, lowering trade barriers, and managing transboundary issues from civil aviation to telecommunications. For small states like Ireland, multilateralism has been a force multiplier, providing influence disproportionate to size. Today these institutions face a legitimacy and effectiveness crisis. The WTO Appellate Body has been paralyzed since 2019 by US objections. The IMF and World Bank face persistent demands for governance reform to reflect the shift in global economic weight. The expansion of BRICS in 2024 and the proliferation of parallel institutions — the AIIB, the New Development Bank, the SCO — reflect dissatisfaction with Western-dominated bodies. Meanwhile, financing shortfalls, US arrears, and political polarization have weakened the UN system itself. The central debate is between reform and replacement: whether existing institutions can be adapted through expanded membership, weighted voting changes, and modernized mandates, or whether the emerging order will be characterized by competing institutional ecosystems serving different blocs.

Key players

The United Nations at a Crossroads

Founded in 1945 with 51 members and now comprising 193, the United Nations has grown into a sprawling system encompassing the Secretariat, six principal organs, specialized agencies, funds, and programmes. Its record is mixed but substantial: peacekeeping has stabilized post-conflict transitions from Cambodia to Liberia; the Sustainable Development Goals frame global development cooperation; UNHCR and WFP remain indispensable humanitarian actors; and norm-setting through bodies such as the IAEA and WHO underpins global governance of nuclear technology and pandemic response. Ireland served on the Security Council in 2021–22 and consistently ranks among the per-capita leaders in UN peacekeeping contributions, with Irish troops deployed to UNIFIL in Lebanon for over four decades. The organization now faces converging crises. Security Council paralysis over Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan has revived debates about the veto and Council reform first raised seriously in the 1990s. The Pact for the Future, adopted in September 2024, set out an ambitious reform agenda but its implementation remains uncertain. A liquidity crisis driven by late or withheld contributions has forced hiring freezes and programme cuts. Peacekeeping is contracting — MINUSMA's expulsion from Mali in 2023 and MONUSCO's drawdown in the DRC mark a retreat from large multidimensional missions. The core question for member states is whether the UN can reform fast enough to remain relevant, or whether it will be progressively bypassed by ad hoc coalitions and regional bodies on the issues that matter most.

Key players

Humanitarianism in Crisis

Modern humanitarianism traces its roots to the founding of the ICRC in 1863 and the codification of international humanitarian law through the Geneva Conventions. The contemporary system — coordinated by OCHA and delivered through UN agencies, the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement, and a vast NGO ecosystem — operates on principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence. Ireland has long been a disproportionately significant humanitarian donor and is the headquarters of major operational NGOs including Concern, Trócaire, and GOAL. The sector now faces unprecedented strain. OCHA's 2024 Global Humanitarian Overview identified record needs — driven by conflicts in Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine, Myanmar, and the DRC, alongside climate-related disasters — against a backdrop of declining donor funding, with appeals consistently funded at under half of requirements. Humanitarian workers have been killed at record rates, particularly in Gaza, where the UN has recorded the deadliest period in its history for its personnel. Access denial, the bureaucratic obstruction of aid, the politicization of assistance, and accusations that humanitarian action enables warring parties have all eroded operational space. Debates center on how to defend humanitarian principles when belligerents weaponize aid, how to bridge the humanitarian-development-peace 'nexus,' how to localize response by shifting resources to national actors, and how to sustain financing as donor governments face domestic fiscal pressure and rising skepticism toward foreign aid.

Key players

Reform and Paralysis of the UN Security Council

The Security Council was designed in 1945 to concentrate enforcement authority in five victorious powers — the United States, United Kingdom, France, Soviet Union (now Russia), and China — each holding a veto over substantive decisions. Membership expanded modestly in 1965 to add four non-permanent seats, but the core structure has not changed since. The Council retains unique legal authority under Chapter VII of the Charter to impose binding measures, authorize the use of force, and refer situations to the ICC. The Council's record is uneven. It authorized successful interventions in Korea (1950), Kuwait (1990), and Libya (2011), established tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and mandated dozens of peacekeeping operations. But it has been repeatedly paralyzed on the conflicts that matter most. Russia has used its veto extensively to shield itself over Ukraine; the United States has vetoed resolutions on Gaza; China and Russia have blocked action on Syria. The 2022 'Veto Initiative' (Resolution 76/262) requires the General Assembly to debate any use of the veto, marking a modest accountability step. Reform proposals — the G4 (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan) bid for permanent seats, the African Union's Ezulwini Consensus demanding two African permanent seats, and the Uniting for Consensus group's opposition to new vetoes — remain deadlocked. Ireland served on the Council in 2021–22 and used its term to advance climate-security, women-peace-and-security, and accountability agendas, illustrating both the influence and the limits available to elected members.

Key players

Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution

Peacemaking — the diplomatic effort to end ongoing armed conflict through negotiation, mediation, and political settlement — is distinct from peacekeeping and peacebuilding, though all three are interrelated. The UN's normative framework for peacemaking is grounded in Chapter VI of the Charter and has been elaborated through the 1992 Agenda for Peace, the 2000 Brahimi Report, and the 2015 HIPPO review. Specialized capacities sit in the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, while regional organizations (AU, EU, ECOWAS, OSCE) and individual states often lead specific processes. Ireland brings unique credibility to this field: the 1998 Good Friday Agreement is widely studied as a model of inclusive, principled negotiation, and Irish diplomats and former officials are active in mediation efforts globally. The contemporary picture is sobering. Academic data show that negotiated settlements are ending a smaller share of conflicts than at any point in the past three decades; most contemporary wars end through military victory or simply burn on inconclusively. The fragmentation of armed actors, the involvement of multiple external sponsors, transnational ideological movements, and the proliferation of mercenary forces have all complicated mediation. High-profile processes — on Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Ukraine — have stalled or collapsed. Meanwhile, the Women, Peace and Security agenda (Resolution 1325 and successors) and growing attention to inclusive processes have raised expectations about who must be at the table. The core debates concern whether the international community should engage with sanctioned or designated actors to secure settlements, how to sequence justice and peace, how to sustain ceasefires absent enforcement, and whether the UN's convening role can be preserved as great-power rivalry pushes mediation into regional and minilateral formats.

Key players