Over a decade ago, in the very first substantive post I wrote for this blog, I discussed how parts of a drone used in attacks on civilians in Darfur were made in Ireland. The post illustrated how ostensibly non-military material manufactured in Ireland could not only be used in conflicts, but could also contribute to war crimes and violations of human rights. The weakness of Ireland’s oversight of such exports and the near absence of any human rights obligations on Irish companies was evident. I concluded at the time:
Given the globalised nature of trade and the often shadowy side of the arms industry, it may be inevitable that Irish-made dual-use products will end up in the hands of those that abuse human rights. A legal obligation to exercise due diligence and a rigorously enforced licence and sanctions system might reduce the risk of Irish companies becoming complicit in violations, but is unlikely to eliminate it.
Ten years on, we have an almost identical incident arising, this time in the context of the war in Ukraine. An image posted on Twitter on 18 July 2023 claims to show parts of a Russian “Shahed” drone shot down in the Mykolaiv region of Ukraine. A component is clearly stamped ‘Made in Ireland’, alongside the name Tillotson. Tillotson is a US company with a manufacturing operation in Co. Kerry – the very same company which made the part used in the Darfur drone which generated such controversy a decade ago.
That a product made in Ireland might be connected to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine quickly went from being highlighted on social media to being reported in the international media, condemned by the Ukraine authorities and investigated by the Irish government. The company itself suggested that the part may be fake, but acknowledged that some of Tillotson’s products can be adapted for military use, “so it works with the Irish government to monitor downstream misuse of its products”. The Irish Times reported the statement of a Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment spokesperson that “Ireland implements a robust export control policy, which includes the application of the relevant EU and international standards for export control”.
But how robust can such an export control policy be, if identical products manufactured by the very same Irish-based company show up repeatedly in conflicts characterised by serious violations of international law? First Darfur, now Ukraine, but also Yemen a few years back. And what does it say about the impact of all the activity on business and human rights more generally in Ireland over the past decade if the same controversy recurs? How can the conclusion be avoided that very little has changed in practice in the Irish context when it comes to ensuring business respect for human rights?
One of the first public figures to respond to the photo of the Ukraine drone was Charlie Flanagan, a T.D. for Fine Gael (one of the two main parties in Government). He tweeted that “This is a matter of some concern & must be investigated by Irish authorities”. Flanagan was Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade from 2014-2017, a time during which Ireland had announced its commitment to implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. In particular, the Irish Government undertook to develop a national action plan on business and human rights. The then Minister offered no shortage of lofty rhetoric on the matter:
[It is] important for Ireland’s standing internationally and the reputation of Irish companies that we signal our commitment to placing human rights firmly on the business agenda.
[…] the development of a national plan is a valuable opportunity to situate Ireland as a progressive leader on the issue of business and human rights.
Yet no national plan appeared during his tenure. There were no “authorities” established with the power, resources and expertise to monitor and sanction the conduct of Irish companies implicated in human rights violations or breaches of international law. Instead, there was prevarication and delay.
An overly-lengthy consultation on a national plan consumed a vast amount of civil society time, resources and energy, and yet seemed to have little impact on the Irish Government’s approach. Business representative organisations, who showed little enthusiasm for the entire undertaking and made cursory submissions on a proposed national plan, were more influential in persuading Ireland to pursue an essentially business as usual approach.
The National Plan on Business and Human Rights 2017-2020 was eventually released in November 2017, at a closed door event with limited publicity (no press release was ever issued). At the launch, the Minister Simon Coveney emphasised the “business case” for human rights, and the vast majority of the commitments are limited to merely promoting respecting for human rights by business. Of the firmer commitments, conducting an independent baseline assessment of law and policy in Ireland relation to business and human rights and establishing an Implementation Group, both were only fulfilled after considerable delay. The baseline assessment, published in 2019, provided a robust analysis of the state of play concerning business and human rights and offered numerous valuable recommendations, but the Implementation Group did not have the power to act on any of them. The same can be said for the detailed and laudable Access to Remedy report. The Implementation Group (of which I was a member) met infrequently, lacked coherence in its mandate and ultimately amounted to little more than an information-sharing forum.
For years, the promise of a national plan on business and human rights and then references to its implementation became the Government’s stock response when questioned, whether by United Nations human rights bodies in Geneva or opposition politicians at home, on matters relating to business and human rights. There have been no legislative efforts of any significance over the past decade concerning business and human rights as successive governments have adopted a minimalist approach to business responsibility for human rights. Ireland has been luke-warm at best to the prospect of a new binding instrument on business and human rights. Only impending EU laws on human rights and environmental due diligence will lead to a change in the law here. The growth of civil litigation against multinational companies in other common law countries, has not materialised or been facilitated here.
As the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment launch a consultation on the development of Ireland’s second national plan on business and human rights, the experience of the past number of years provides little reason for optimism. A government that oversees relentlessly rising homelessness and missed carbon emissions targets does not engender a positive outlook.
* * *
State action concerning business and human rights Ireland over the past decade is not something to be applauded. The most positive development over the past decade has been the remarkable engagement by civil society with business and human rights. Few if any NGOs were using the language of business and human rights in Ireland ten years ago, but now we see corporate accountability high up on lists of priorities, with dedicated staff members within various organisations working on these issues. Civil society seek to influence Government policy and lawmaking on business and human rights, issuing a stream of reports and press
releases on related topics. Trócaire have been to the fore, campaigning vigorously on business and human rights, while Christian Aid and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have also been 
especially prominent. The establishment of the Irish Coalition on Business and Human Rights in recent years is an important development, allowing its members to organise, campaign collectively and plug into international and regional networks which aim to advance business and human rights.
Other developments over the past decade can also be pointed to. Business and human rights is frequently raised when Ireland appears before the United Nations human rights monitoring bodies in Geneva (mostly thanks to the efforts of civil society), forcing the Government to respond and to articulate its commitments in this area. Business and human rights as a subject is also increasingly taught at Universities in Ireland – my masters’ class at the Irish Centre for Human Rights on business and human rights is more popular than ever.
* * *
Readers of the blog will have noticed a considerably slowing down in the number of posts over the past while. This is in large part a reflection of the limited substantive developments concerning business and human rights in Ireland in recent years. How many times can you post about the lack of action or initiative on the part of government? After the passing of a decade, it would seem like an appropriate time to bring my work on the Business and Human Rights in Ireland blog to an end.
There have been around 250 posts on the blog over the past decade, including numerous guest posts from experts and practitioners, both from Ireland and beyond. Business and Human Rights in Ireland has been visited over 40,000 times. In addition to tracking broader business and human rights developments, a wide range of topics have been covered, many of which remain at issue today: business profiteering from direct provision for asylum seekers, corporate tax avoidance, the involvement of technology, social media and digital tourism companies in human rights violations, abuses associated with the World Cup in Qatar 2022, and forced labour in the Irish fishing industry, to name a few.
The blog will remain online, as a repository of developments and analysis relating to business and human rights in Ireland. Both the co-editors and I hope that this space can continue to be used as a vehicle for discussion, debate and critique, such as around the second national plan and particularly if future Governments take a more progressive and active approach to business and human rights. Those wishing to contribute can be in touch with co-editors Dr Ciara Hackett (c.hackett@qub.ac.uk) and Dr Rachel Widdis (rachel.widdis@tcd.ie).
And with that, my thanks to the co-editors and to the many readers and contributors over the years who have engaged with the blog, shared their perspectives and sought to push the agenda forward, even if the rate of progress has been slower than that which these issues deserve.
Business & Human Rights in Ireland 
Excellent article! Thank you.