Urszula Connolly
The Irisch Constitution - an
examination of selected issues
Studia Prawnoustrojowe nr 9, 95-108
2009
U rsula C onnolly
I r e la n d
The Irisch C onstitution
- an exam ination of selected issues
1. Introd u ction
T h e c u r r e n t v e r s io n o f th e I r i s h C o n s titu tio n a d o p te d in 1937 is a n e x p a n s iv e d o c u m e n t w h ic h la y s d o w n th e s y s te m b y w h ic h th e I r i s h s t a t e is g o v e rn e d , h o w th e c o u rt s y s te m o p e r a te s a n d sig n ific a n tly , lis ts a n u m b e r of f u n d a m e n ta l r ig h ts w h ic h a ll c itiz e n s a r e e n title d to enjoy. U n lik e th e c o n s ti tu tio n s o f so m e o th e r c o u n tr ie s 1 th e I r i s h C o n s titu tio n is a w r i t t e n d o c u m e n t, a d o p te d a s s u c h b y th e p e o p le o f I r e l a n d i n a r e f e r e n d u m i n 1 9 3 7 2. T h e im p o r ta n c e o f t h e C o n s titu tio n a s a d o c u m e n t o f t h e p e o p le is re f le c te d b y th e f a c t t h a t i t c a n o n ly b e a m e n d e d b y r e f e r e n d u m 3. I t is , s u b je c t to th e p ro v is io n s o f E u r o p e a n U n io n law , th e s u p r e m e s o u rc e o f la w in th e c o u n tr y r e n d e r i n g n u l l a n d v o id a n y m e a s u r e w ith w h ic h i t c o m e s in to c o n flic t4. I n te r e s tin g ly , i t is w r i t t e n i n b o th th e I r i s h la n g u a g e a n d in E n g lis h , w ith t h e I r i s h v e r s io n t a k i n g p re c e d e n c e in t h e e v e n t o f a n y lin g u is tic c o n flic t5.
M o st o f th e C o n s titu tio n is g iv e n o v e r to a d m in is tr a tiv e a n d e x e c u tiv e p ro v isio n s. T h e C o n s titu tio n a lso g iv es p r o te c tio n to w h a t i t d e s c rib e s a s
1 The United Kingdom is a notable example. It is noted that while Ireland enjoys a written Constitution the distinction of having the first written constitution in Europe goes to Poland, with it’s Constitution of 1791.
2 An earlier constitution of 1922 was replaced - largely for political reasons - in its entirety by the 1937 Constitution.
3 The Irish Constitution has been amended 25 times as of 2008.
4 The question of Constitutionality is considered prior to the adoption of legislation by both houses of Parliament and if necessary by consideration of a Constitutional Committee on referral by the President. Once a piece of legislation is adopted it’s constitutionality can be tested by the Supreme Court only.
5 Article 8.1 of the Irish Constitution.
“f u n d a m e n ta l r i g h t s ”6. In c lu d e d in th e s e a r e p e rs o n a l r ig h ts (a rtic le 4 0 )7, m e a s u r e s r e la tin g to th e fa m ily (a rtic le 41), th e r ig h t to e d u c a tio n (a rtic le 42), p e r s o n a l p ro p e r ty (a rtic le 43 ) a n d th e r i g h t to fre e d o m o f r e lig io n ( a r tic le 44). I n k e e p in g w ith th e t r a d i t i o n a l f o r m u la tio n o f c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts in m o st ju r is d ic tio n s , th e r ig h ts o u tlin e d in th e I r i s h C o n s titu tio n a r e n o t a b s o lu te , b u t r a t h e r c a n b e lim ite d s u b je c t to p u b lic o r d e r o r m o r a lity o r th e p u b lic good8. M o st o f th e p e r s o n a l r ig h ts o u tlin e d in a rtic le 40 a n d th e r ig h t to fre e d o m o f re lig io n o u tlin e d in a rtic le 44(2) a re g u a r a n te e d to c itiz e n s only, th e ex c e p tio n to th is is th e r ig h t to life p ro v isio n in a rtic le 40, w h ic h does n o t r e fe r to c itiz e n s h ip . O n th e o th e r h a n d , th e r ig h ts o f th e fam ily, r ig h ts to e d u c a tio n a n d th e r ig h t to p e rs o n a l p ro p e r ty m a k e no re fe re n c e to c itiz e n sh ip .
D e s p ite t h is c o m m e n d a b le g u a r a n t e e o f r ig h ts , th e I r i s h C o n s titu tio n is n o n e th e le s s v e ry m u c h a re fle c tio n o f th e r e lig io u s so c ie ty i n w h ic h i t w a s c r e a te d a n d c o n tin u e s to o p e r a te . I l lu s tr a tiv e o f th i s is th e P r e a m b le o f th e C o n s titu tio n w ith its sp ecific r e f e re n c e s to J e s u s C h r is t a n d th e H o ly T r in i ty 9. T h is c a n b e c o n tr a s te d w ith th e P o lis h C o n s titu tio n w h ic h in c lu d e s b o th b e lie v e rs a n d n o n e -b e lie v e rs in i t ’s P r e a m b le , r e f e r r in g to “th o s e w ho b e lie v e in G od [...] a n d th o s e w ho do n o t s h a r e s u c h f a i t h ”10. I n so m e c a s e s in th e I r i s h c o n te x t th is e x p lic it re fe re n c e to a C a th o lic id eo lo g y h a s le d to a r e s t r i c tiv e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e C o n s titu tio n 11 b u t i t w o u ld b e w ro n g to t h i n k t h a t th i s is a lw a y s th e c a se , a s th e c o u rts h a v e b e e n w illin g to g iv e a b r o a d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to C o n s titu tio n a l r i g h t s 12.
7 Included in the Personal rights provision is the right to be held equal before the law (article 40.1), a guarantee that the State will protect the personal rights of the citizen including but not limited to the right to life, the right to a good name, and property rights (article 40.3.1 and article 40.3.2), a guarantee that the State will protect the right to life of the unborn (article 40.3.3), the right to liberty (article 40.4), a statement that the dwelling of every citizen is inviolable subject to the law (article 40.4), the right to free expression, peaceful assembly and the formation of associations and unions subject to public order and morality (article 40.6).
8 Such a qualification exists also in the Polish Constitution of 1997 which allows in article 33(3) for the limitation of constitutional rights and liberties by legislature where requ ired for the protection of society.
9 The Preamble states “In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Eire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who susta ined our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful inde pendence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution”. 10 Preamble, Polish Constitution 1997.
11 See in particular Norris v Attorney General (1984) I.R. 84 below.
12 See for instance McGee v Attorney General (1974) I.R. 284 and Attorney General v X (1992) 1 IR 1.
I n th i s p a p e r o n ly s e le c te d a s p e c ts o f th e C o n s titu tio n w ill b e a d d re s s e d , th o s e d e a lin g w ith th e fa m ily ( in c lu d in g t h e d e f in itio n o f fam ily , th e r ig h t to c o n tr a c e p tiv e s a n d th e r ig h t to d iv o rce), th e r i g h t to life ( in c lu d in g is s u e s o f a b o r tio n a n d th e r i g h t to die) a n d th e p ro v is io n s r e la te d to th e a d o p tio n o f in t e r n a t i o n a l la w ( in c lu d in g o u r m e m b e r s h ip o f th e E u r o p e a n U n io n ). T h e c h o s e n a r tic le s a r e p e r h a p s th e m o s t c o n tro v e rs ia l, a n d m a y in som e a s p e c ts , fin d m ir r o r im a g e s in th e P o lis h le g a l la n d s c a p e .
2. Fam ily
T h e p ro v is io n s r e g a r d in g th e fa m ily i n th e I r i s h C o n s titu tio n , c o n ta in e d in a r tic le 41, a r e f a r - r e a c h in g a n d la r g e ly re fle c tiv e o f a c o n s e rv a tiv e C a th o lic ideology. A rtic le 41 p la c e s a p o s itiv e o b lig a tio n o n th e s t a t e to “p r o te c t th e F a m ily ”13, w h ic h i t re c o g n is e s “a s th e n a t u r a l p r im a r y a n d f u n d a m e n ta l u n it g ro u p o f Society, a n d a s a m o r a l i n s t i t u t i o n ” p o s s e s s in g “in a lie n a b le a n d im p r e s c r ip tib le r ig h ts , a n te c e d e n t a n d s u p e r io r to a ll p o s itiv e la w ”14. T h u s n o t o n ly is th e ro le o f th e fa m ily s e e n to b e f u n d a m e n ta l to I r i s h so c ie ty b u t th e fa m ily is d e s c rib e d a s a u n i t p o s s e s s in g a s p e c ia l m o r a l a u th o r ity , s u p e r io r to o th e r “u n i t g ro u p s ” a n d w o rth y o f s p e c ia l p ro te c tio n b y th e S ta te . T h is w o u ld n o t p o se a n y p a r t i c u l a r d iffic u ltie s if th e C o n s titu tio n a l fa m ily w a s b r o a d ly d e fin e d a n d in c lu s iv e o f a ll h o u s e h o ld u n its . A s w e s h a ll se e h o w e v e r, th e d e f in itio n g iv e n to a C o n s titu tio n a l fa m ily is m u c h n a rro w e r, e n c o m p a s s in g o n ly th o s e w ho a r e m a r r ie d o r a r e th e c h ild r e n o f a m a r r ie d u n it. T h is in e s s e n c e is v e r y m u c h a re fle c tio n o f th e s a m e C a th o lic id eo lo g y t h a t u n d e r p in n e d th e p r e a m b le to th e I r i s h C o n s titu tio n a s d e s c rib e d in th e in tr o d u c tio n . T h e r a m if ic a tio n s o f t h is n a r r o w ly d r a w n d e fin itio n a r e d e s c r i b e d below .
Fam ily b ased on m arriage
A rtic le 41 d e fin e s th e fa m ily a s b e in g b a s e d o n m a r r ia g e a n d p la c e s a p o s itiv e o b lig a tio n o n th e S t a t e to n o t o n ly p r o te c t th e fa m ily b u t to p r o te c t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f m a r r ia g e o n w h ic h th e fa m ily is fo u n d e d , s t a t i n g t h a t ,
“T h e S ta te p le d g e s its e lf to g u a r d w ith sp e c ia l c a re th e in s titu tio n o f M a rria g e , o n w h ic h th e F a m ily is fo u n d e d , a n d to p ro te c t i t a g a in s t a tta c k ”15.
T h e C o n s titu tio n R e v ie w G ro u p - a b o d y e s ta b lis h e d b y t h e G o v e rn m e n t to re v ie w t h e p ro v is io n s o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d s u g g e s t a m e n d m e n ts - r e p o r te d in 1996 a n d a d d r e s s e d th i s n a r r o w d e f in itio n o f ‘fa m ily ’. D e s p ite a c k n o w le d g in g th e c h a n g in g c o m p o sitio n o f I r i s h fa m ilie s , w h ic h n o w in c lu
13 Article 41.1.2. 14 Article 41.1.1. 15 Article 41.3.1.
d es in c r e a s in g ly la r g e r n u m b e r s o f c o - h a b itin g a n d s in g le p a r e n t fa m ilie s , th e R e v ie w G ro u p d e c id e d a g a in s t a n y a m e n d m e n t o f th e c u r r e n t c o n s titu tio n a l d e f in itio n 16.
I n I r e la n d , m a r r ia g e is le g a lly o n ly a v a ila b le to o p p o s ite se x c o u p le s 17. C o n s titu tio n a l p ro te c tio n th e r e f o r e is o n ly a ffo rd e d to m a r r ie d h e te r o s e x u a l c o u p le s a n d t h e i r c h ild re n . T h e p r a c tic a l e ffe ct o f th is d is tin c tio n w a s s e e n in th e c a s e o f O ’B v S 18. I n th i s c a s e le g is la tio n , w h ic h i n i t ’s e ffe c t d is c r im in a te d a g a in s t n o n - m a r ita l c h ild r e n w a s fo u n d to b e c o n s titu tio n a l a s i t h a d a s i t ’s a im th e p r o te c tio n o f t h e c h ild r e n o f a m a r r ie d u n io n . T h e le g is la tiv e p ro v is io n s a t is s u e w e re ss 66 a n d 67 o f th e S u c c e s s io n A ct 1965 w h ic h p re c lu d e d a n o n - m a r ita l c h ild fro m a u to m a tic a lly in h e r i t i n g in th e s a m e w a y a s m a r i t a l c h ild r e n o n th e in te s ta c y o f a p a r e n t. T h e C o u r t h e ld t h a t th i s d id n o t o ffen d t h e r ig h t to b e t r e a t e d e q u a lly 19 a s i t ’s p u rp o s e w a s to “p la c e m e m b e rs o f a fa m ily b a s e d u p o n m a r r ia g e in a m o re fa v o u ra b le p o s itio n t h a n o th e r p e rs o n s in r e la tio n to su c c e s s io n to p r o p e r ty ” a s th e S t a t e w as e n title d to do b y v ir tu e o f a r tic le 41. I t is in d ic a tiv e o f a n e v o lv in g I r is h so c ie ty t h a t th i s p a r t i c u l a r p ro v is io n w a s r e p la c e d b y a l a t e r p iece o f le g is la tio n w h ic h re m o v e d th e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n c h ild r e n b a s e d o n th e m a r i t a l s t a t u s o f t h e i r p a r e n t s 20. D e s p ite th i s p o s itiv e s t a t u t o r y d e v e lo p m e n t i t r e m a in s th e c a s e t h a t th e p ro te c tio n a ffo rd e d b y C o n s titu tio n a l F a m ily r ig h ts do n o t e x te n d to n o n - m a r ita l c h ild r e n o n a n e q u a l fo o tin g w ith th e c h ild r e n o f m a r r ie d p a r e n t s 21.
I n a d d itio n to th e n e g a tiv e e ffe c t th e c u r r e n t w o rd in g o f th e fa m ily p ro v is io n h a s o n so m e o f th e n a tio n ’s c h ild r e n , th e w o rd in g h a s a lso r e s u lte d
16
Tenth Progress Report (2006, Pn A5/1784), pp. 121-129. The Central Statistics Office on the other hand, which is responsible for gathering statistics on Irish society, defines a “Family Unit” for the purposes of data collection much more broadly as comprising: (1) a husband and wife or a cohabiting couple; or (2) a husband and wife or a cohabiting couple together with one or more usually resident never-married children (of any age); or (3) one parent together with one or more usually resident never-married children (of any age)”. See [online] <www.cso.ie/ census/census2006results/volume_3/entire_volume_3.pdf> at p. 143, visited on 5th September 2008.17
This position has recently been affirmed, see Zappone and Gilligan v Revenue Commissioners, and ors (Unreported, High Court, 13 Dec 06, Dunne J.) currently on appeal to the
Supreme Court.
18
O’B v S (1984) IR 316.19
This right is enshrined in article 40.1 which reads “All citizens shall, as human per sons, be held equal before the law”.20
Section 29 Status of Children Act 1987.21
More recently, following on calls for the inclusion of a specific constitutional provision to protect children’s rights, the Irish Government has drafted the Twenty eight Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2007 which contains the Government’s proposals on constitutional provi sions in respect of the child. The Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, established in 2007, is due to report on 30th November 2008 on the implementation of these proposals. See [online] <www.omc.gov.ie/viewtxt.asp?fn=%2Fdocuments%2Flegisla- tion%2FconstRef.htm>.in s ta g n a tin g e ffo rts to o ffer p ro te c tio n to c o -h a b itin g c o u p le s, in c lu d in g h e te r o s e x u a l co u p le s. E a r ly c a s e la w in th i s a r e a h a d fo c u se d o n th e le g itim a cy o f f in a n c ia l s u p p o r ts fo r u n m a r r ie d co u p le s. I n a n u m b e r o f c a s e s d a tin g fro m th e 1 9 7 0 s t a x a tio n la w s f a v o u rin g c o -h a b itin g c o u p le s w e re s tr u c k d o w n a s b e in g a n a t t a c k o n m a r r ia g e ( th u s f a ilin g to a d e q u a te ly p r o te c t th e in s t i t u t i o n o f m a r r ia g e ) . I n th e c a s e o f M u r p h y v A tto r n e y G e n e ra l22 for i n s ta n c e a p ro v is io n o f th e In c o m e T ax A ct 1 9 6 7 23 w h ic h t r e a t e d th e in co m e o f tw o m a r r ie d p e o p le a s a sin g le in c o m e ( th e r e b y p u s h in g t h e i r ta x a b le in c o m e in to th e h ig h e r ta x b r a c k e t) w a s d e e m e d to b e u n c o n s titu tio n a l. T h is fin d in g w a s u p h e ld in l a t e r c a s e s , a n d a n y a t t e m p t to c h a n g e th i s p o s itio n h a s p ro v e n e x tr e m e ly c o n te n tio u s .
M o re re c e n tly , a s tr o n g lo b b y to a llo w fo r th e le g a l re c o g n itio n o f n o n - m a r t i a l u n io n s h a s le d to e ffo rts to d r a f t a C iv il P a r t n e r s h i p B ill. To d a te - S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 8 - o n ly th e G e n e r a l S c h e m e o f th e p ro p o s e d B ill h a s b e e n p u b lis h e d 24. I t h a s , u n s u r p r is in g ly , r e s u lte d in s tr o n g o p p o s itio n fro m m o re c o n s e rv a tiv e q u a r t e r s w h o a r g u e t h a t to allo w le g a l r e c o g n itio n o f n o n m a r i t a l o r h o m o s e x u a l u n io n s is to a t t a c k a n d u n d e r m in e th e C o n s titu tio n a l fa m ily 25. W h ile th e a r g u m e n t is a f a m ilia r o n e th e p ro p o s e d B ill s h o u ld n o t c a u s e u n d u e c o n c e rn . T h e a im s o f th e B ill a s c u r r e n tly w o rd e d in th e G e n e r a l S c h e m e a r e re la tiv e ly m o d e st. I t offers a m e c h a n is m b y w h ic h h o m o se x u a l co u p le s c a n r e g is te r t h e i r p a r t n e r s h i p s a n d a v a il o f so m e o f th e fin a n c ia l b e n e f its a v a ila b le to m a r r ie d co u p le s. A s c u r r e n tly f o r m u la te d , i t w ill n o t allo w fo r m a r r ia g e , t h u s a v o id in g a n y p o s s ib ility o f s u c h u n io n s a t t r a c t i n g C o n s titu tio n a l p ro te c tio n . A lth o u g h i t is u n lik e ly to s ile n c e c ritic s , fo r o u r p u r p o s e s i t m e a n s t h a t th e d e f in itio n a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e C o n s titu tio n a l fa m ily o u g h t to r e m a in u n c h a n g e d .
A s c a n b e s e e n fro m th e d is c u s s io n a b o v e, th e r e h a s b e e n a re lu c ta n c e fro m a p a r l i a m e n t a r y p e rs p e c tiv e to in tr o d u c e a n y a m e n d m e n t to t h e d e f in i tio n o f th e C o n s titu tio n a l fam ily. A r e c e n t H ig h C o u r t c a s e h o w ev er, h a s in d ic a te d a m o re fle x ib le a p p r o a c h b y th e c o u r ts to re c o g n is in g a ty p ic a l u n io n s . I n M c D. v L & A n o r 26 t h e c o u rt w a s w illin g to re c o g n is e a le s b ia n co u p le a s t h e “d e fa c to ” p a r e n t s o f a c h ild t h a t w a s b io lo g ic a lly th e c h ild o f
22
Murphy v Attorney General (1982) IR 241.23
Section 192.24
As a preliminary step the Department of Justice has published the General Scheme of the Bill and has invited contributions from the public. See [online] <www.justice.ie/en/JELR/ Pages/General_Scheme_of_Civil_Partnership_Bill>.25
For an alternative view of the effect of protection for non-marital unions on marriage see M.V. Badgett, Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage?, Sexuality Research and Social Policy Journal of NSRC 2004, 1(3), pp. 1-10. This
study, based on an examination of five European countries where “marriage like” rights exist for same-sex couples, found that giving such rights had no effect on heterosexual marriage.
o n ly o n e o f th e m . T h e fa th e r , w ho h a d s o u g h t to e s ta b lis h c u s to d y r ig h ts w a s o n th e o th e r h a n d , d e s c rib e d b y t h e c o u r t a s b e in g in t h e p o s itio n of a “fa v o u r ite u n c le ”. I t is s ig n ific a n t i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g h o w th e c o u r t w as w illin g to m a k e s u c h a r a d ic a l c a te g o r is a tio n t h a t th e b io lo g ic a l p a r e n t s o f th e c h ild in th i s c a s e w e re u n m a r r ie d a n d t h u s u n a ff e c te d b y th e C o n s titu tio n . H a d t h e y n o t b e e n , i t is c e r ta in t h a t a n y re c o g n itio n o f th e r ig h t o f th e n o n -b io lo g ic a l le s b ia n p a r e n t w o u ld h a v e b e e n s e e n a s a d ir e c t a t t a c k o n th e C o n s titu tio n a l fa m ily a n d th e r e f o r e p ro h ib ite d .
The C onstitu tion al fam ily and divorce
U n til 1997 i t w a s n o t p o ssib le to o b ta in a d iv o rce i n I r e la n d , th e d is s o lu tio n o f m a r r ia g e b e in g s tr ic tly p r o h ib ite d 27. A fa ile d a t t e m p t w a s m a d e in 1986 to in tr o d u c e d iv o rce in to I r i s h so c ie ty w ith a lm o s t tw ic e a s m a n y v o tin g a g a in s t th e p ro v is io n a s fo r i t (o v e r 9 0 0 ,0 0 0 a g a in s t a s o p p o se d to o v er 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 in fa v o u r). A s u b s e q u e n t a t t e m p t to a llo w fo r d iv o rce in 1995 su c c e e d e d h o w ev er, a lb e it w ith th e s lig h te s t o f m a jo r itie s (le ss t h a n 10,0 0 0 v o tes). F o llo w in g th is r e f e r e n d u m a r tic le 41 o f th e C o n s titu tio n w a s a m e n d e d a n d th e F a m ily L a w (D ivorce) A ct 1996 in tro d u c e d , o u tlin in g th e p ro v is io n s go v e r n in g o b ta in in g a d iv o rc e in I r e la n d . T h e r e le v a n t a r tic le , a r tic le 4 1 .2 , now r e a d s ,
“A C o u r t d e s ig n a te d b y la w m a y g r a n t a d is s o lu tio n of m a r r ia g e w h e re , b u t o n ly w h e re , i t is s a tis f ie d t h a t
i. a t th e d a te o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n o f th e p ro c e e d in g s , t h e s p o u s e s h a v e liv e d a p a r t fro m o n e a n o th e r fo r a p e rio d of, o r p e rio d s a m o u n tin g to , a t le a s t fo u r y e a r s d u r in g th e five y e a r s ,
ii. th e r e is n o r e a s o n a b le p ro s p e c t o f a r e c o n c ilia tio n b e tw e e n th e sp o u s e s ,
iii. s u c h p ro v is io n a s t h e C o u r t c o n s id e rs p r o p e r h a v in g r e g a r d to th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s e x is ts o r w ill b e m a d e fo r th e s p o u s e s , a n y c h ild r e n o f e ith e r o r b o th o f th e m a n d a n y o th e r p e r s o n p r e s c r ib e d b y law , a n d iv. a n y f u r t h e r c o n d itio n s p re s c rib e d b y la w a r e co m p lie d w ith ”.
A s c a n b e s e e n fro m th i s p ro v is io n , d is s o lv in g a m a r r ia g e in I r e la n d is no tr iv ia l m a tte r . C o u p le s m u s t h a v e b e e n s e p a r a te d fo r a t le a s t fo u r o f th e p re c e d in g five y e a r s , a n d a d e q u a te p ro v is io n m u s t h a v e b e e n m a d e fo r th e d e p e n d e n t sp o u se . I n p r a c tic e , w h a t c o n s titu te s b e in g “s e p a r a t e d ” fo r th e p u rp o s e s of d iv o rce la w h a s b e e n g iv e n a w id e d e f in itio n b y th e c o u rts , w ith so m e s p o u s e s b e in g d e e m e d to liv e s e p a r a te ly w h e n s h a r in g th e s a m e h o u s e 28.
27 There existed a mechanism by which foreign divorces could be recognised and legal separations were available, but these did not allow for remarriage. The Irish Census numbered the number of legally separated couples in 1996 as 78,005.
C on stitu tion al fam ily and con tracep tion
T h e is s u e o f c o n tra c e p tio n in I r e la n d h a s h a d a d iffic u lt h isto ry . T h e C o n s titu tio n it s e l f d o es n o t h a v e a n y e x p re s s p ro v is io n d e a lin g w ith c o n tr a c e p tio n b u t c o n s titu tio n a l p ro v is io n s h a v e p la y e d a s ig n if ic a n t ro le in b r i n g in g a b o u t th e lib e r a lis a tio n o f th e s u p p ly o f c o n tr a c e p tiv e s in I r e la n d . O u r s t a r t i n g p o in t is th e C r im in a l L a w A m e n d m e n t A ct 1935 w h ic h o u tla w e d th e im p o r ta tio n o r m a n u f a c tu r e fo r s a le of c o n tra c e p tio n in I r e la n d . T h is le g is la tio n r e m a in e d in force u n t i l i t w a s s tr u c k d o w n a s b e in g u n c o n s titu tio n a l fo llo w in g th e in fa m o u s d e c isio n in M cG ee v A tto r n e y G e n e ra l29. T h e p la in tif f in th i s c a se , a 2 7 y e a r o ld w o m a n , h a d fo u r c h ild r e n a n d h a d b e e n a d v is e d by h e r d o c to r a g a in s t h a v in g a n y m o re o r r i s k v e ry s e rio u s illn e s s . To av o id p re g n a n c y , a n d u n a b le to o b ta in a n y c o n tra c e p tio n in I r e la n d , s h e im p o rte d s p e rm ic id a l jelly. T h is w a s se iz e d a t c u s to m s h o w ev er, q u ite le g itim a te ly , p u r s u a n t to th e p r o v is io n s o f th e C r im in a l L a w A m e n d m e n t A ct. M rs. M cG ee o b je c te d , s t a t i n g t h a t th e a c t o f s e iz in g h e r s u p p ly o f c o n tr a c e p tiv e s o ffe n d e d h e r r ig h t to fa m ily u n d e r th e C o n s titu tio n (by v ir tu e o f i t d e n y in g h e r th e r ig h t to d e c id e th e size o f h e r fa m ily ) a n d h e r r ig h t to m a r i t a l p riv a c y (a n u n re c o g n is e d r ig h t a t t h a t tim e ). S h e su c c e e d e d , la r g e ly o n th e b a s is o f th e c o u r t’s d e c isio n to re c o g n is e a m a r i t a l r i g h t to p riv a c y a s o n e o f th e u n e n u m e r a te d r ig h ts in a r tic le 4 0 .3 . R e le v a n t a lso w a s h e r r i g h t to fa m ily w h ic h th e c o u rt c o n s id e re d in c lu d e d th e r i g h t to d e te r m in e th e size o f h e r fam ily. T h e u s e o f th e C o n s titu tio n in t h is w ay, a n d th e re c o g n itio n b y th e ju d g e s o f th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f a r i g h t to m a r i t a l p riv a c y w h e re n o n e w a s e x p re s s ly s t a t e d in th e C o n s titu tio n , is a s u p e r b e x a m p le o f th e a b ility o f th e C o n s titu tio n to r e s p o n d to t h e n e e d s o f th e so c ie ty i n w h ic h i t o p e r a te s . T h e e x p a n s i v e d e fin itio n g iv e n to p riv a c y b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t w h ic h a llo w e d fo r th e o ffe n d in g le g is la tio n to b e s tr u c k o u t w a s m a d e p o ssib le b y th e fa c t t h a t th e C o n s titu tio n w a s o th e r w is e s ile n t o n t h e is s u e o f c o n tra c e p tio n . A s w e h a v e s e e n w ith r e g a r d s to th e fa m ily ab o v e, a n d a s w e s h a ll se e b e lo w in r e la tio n to a b o rtio n , s u c h a n e x p a n s iv e v ie w is n o t p o s s ib le w h e re th e C o n s titu tio n e x p re s s ly d e a ls w ith th e s u b je c t30.
29
McGee v Attorney General (1974) I.R. 284.30
It may be of interest to note that while a right to marital privacy was recognised in this case a subsequent effort by a gay Senator, Senator Norris to expand on the fledgling right to privacy to cover a right of sexual privacy generally to include homosexual couples was denied in the case of Norris v AG (1984) I.R. 36. The majority view against recognising such a right was swayed by the Preamble to the Constitution. He ultimately succeeded in his ca se before the European Court of Human Rights however, and the law was subsequently changed.3. R ight to Life
P r io r to 1983 th e o n ly c o n s titu tio n a l p ro v is io n g o v e rn in g th e r ig h t to life w a s a r tic le 4 0 .3 , a b ro a d ly d r a w n a r tic le w h ic h r e q u ir e s th e s t a t e to g u a r a n te e th e “p e r s o n a l r i g h t s ” o f c itiz e n s , a n d to p r o te c t fro m “u n j u s t a t t a c k ” a n d “v in d ic a te ” in te r a lia th e “life ” o f e v e ry c itiz e n 31. T h e d e a th p e n a lty h a d b e e n a b o lis h e d b y s t a t u t e fo r a ll o ffen ce s b y v ir tu e o f th e C r im in a l J u s t i c e A ct 1990. I n 20 0 1 a r e f e r e n d u m w a s p a s s e d to re m o v e fro m P a r l i a m e n t th e r ig h t to r e in tr o d u c e a n y f u r t h e r le g is la tio n p e r m ittin g th e d e a t h p e n a lty 32. T h e c o n s titu tio n a l r i g h t to life p ro v is io n s h a v e , n o n e th e le s s , a ffe c te d h o w th e I r i s h c o u r ts h a v e d e a lt w ith tw o v e r y s e n s itiv e le g a l is s u e s , th e r i g h t to a b o rtio n a n d t h e r ig h t to die. B o th th e s e is s u e s a r e d is c u s s e d below.
The C onstitu tion and abortion
P r io r to 1983, th e I r i s h C o n s titu tio n m a d e no re fe re n c e to t h e d e lib e r a te t e r m in a tio n o f a p re g n a n c y . T h e S t a t e w a s o b lig e d c o n s titu tio n a lly to p ro te c t a n d v in d ic a te th e life o f e v e ry c itiz e n (se e ab o v e) a n d i t w a s c le a r fro m a n u m b e r o f c a s e s t h a t t h is a lso in c lu d e d th e life o f th e u n b o rn . I n M cG ee
v A .G . fo r in s ta n c e (d is c u s s e d ab o v e) W a ls h J . c le a rly s o u g h t to p r e v e n t th e
r ig h t o f m a r i t a l p r iv a c y r e c o g n is e d in M cG ee a s e x te n d in g to a r ig h t to t e r m i n a t e life, s ta tin g ,
“[a ]n y a c tio n o n th e p a r t o f e i t h e r th e h u s b a n d a n d w ife o r o f th e S ta te to lim it fa m ily siz e s b y e n d a n g e r in g o r d e s tro y in g h u m a n life m u s t n e c e s s a r ily n o t o n ly b e a n offence a g a in s t th e co m m o n good b u t a lso a g a in s t th e g u a r a n te e d p e r s o n a l r ig h ts o f t h e h u m a n life in q u e s tio n s ”.
I n a d d itio n , s e c tio n s 58 & 59 o f th e O ffen ces A g a in s t th e P e r s o n A ct 1861 m a d e ille g a l th e p r o c u r e m e n t, c a r r y in g o u t, o r a id in g a n d a b e ttin g o f a n a b o rtio n .
D e s p ite th e s e m e a s u r e s , a n ti- a b o r tio n c a m p a ig n e r s w e re c o n c e rn e d t h a t th e C o n s titu tio n c o u ld b e u s e d to e x p a n d th e r ig h t o f m a r i t a l p r iv a c y a n d p a v e th e w a y to a re c o g n itio n o f a g e n e r a l r ig h t to p riv acy , w h ic h w o u ld in c lu d e a r ig h t to p ro c u re a n a b o rtio n . T h e ir f e a rs w e re b a s e d o n th e U S e x p e rie n c e w h e re a re c o g n itio n o f a r ig h t to p riv a c y u ltim a te ly le d to th e in fa m o u s a n d s till c o n tr o v e rs ia l d e c isio n in R o e v W a d e33, w h ic h h e ld t h a t a r ig h t to p riv a c y e n c o m p a s s e d a r i g h t to te r m i n a t e a p re g n a n c y . S h o u ld a s im ila r d e v e lo p m e n t o c c u r in I r e la n d , so th e r e a s o n in g w e n t, th is w o u ld r e n d e r th e O ffe n ces A g a in s t th e P e r s o n A ct o f 1861 u n c o n s titu tio n a l. In o r d e r to re m o v e s u c h a p o s s ib ility a n ti- a b o r tio n is ts lo b b ie d to h a v e th e r ig h t
31 Article 40.3.2.
32 The referendum to approve the Twenty-first Amendment of the Constitution Act 2001 took place in June 2001, the Act became law in March 2002.
to life o f th e u n b o r n e x p lic itly p r o te c te d in th e I r i s h C o n s titu tio n . W h a t u ltim a te ly r e s u l t e d w a s a p ro v is io n t h a t c a te g o ric a lly p r o te c te d th e life o f th e u n b o r n , b u t w a s in m a n y w a y s m o re c o n fu s in g t h a n th e in i t i a l posi- tio n 3 4 . S ig n ific a n tly , i t d id n o t c la rify w h a t w a s to o c c u r in c a s e s w h e re th e life o f th e m o th e r a n d t h a t o f th e u n b o r n c h ild w e re in c o n flict, o th e r t h a n to s a y t h a t b o th r ig h ts m u s t b e d e e m e d “e q u a l”.
T h e r e le v a n t p ro v isio n , a r tic le 4 0 .3 .3 , r e a d s a s follow s,
“T h e S t a t e a c k n o w le d g e s th e r i g h t to life o f th e u n b o r n a n d , w ith d u e r e g a r d to th e e q u a l r ig h t to life o f th e m o th e r, g u a r a n te e s in its la w s to re s p e c t, a n d , a s f a r a s p ra c tic a b le , b y its la w s to d e fe n d a n d v in d ic a te t h a t rig h t. (In c lu d e d in 1983) T h e f ir s t o p p o r tu n ity th e I r i s h c o u r ts h a d to t e s t th e s u b s ta n tiv e is s u e of t h e r i g h t o f t h e m o th e r v is a v is th e r i g h t o f th e u n b o r n a ro s e in th e c a s e of A tto r n e y G e n e ra l v X 35 w h e re th e e x te n t to w h ic h A rtic le 4 0 .3 .1 c o u ld be
u s e d to p r e v e n t so m e o n e fro m tr a v e llin g a b r o a d to s e c u r e a t e r m in a tio n w a s te s te d . T h e c a s e in v o lv e d a 1 4 -y ear-o ld g irl, p r e g n a n t a s a r e s u l t o f a ra p e , w h o h a d tr a v e lle d to th e U n ite d K in g d o m to p r o c u r e a n a b o rtio n . H e r i n t e n tio n to o b ta in a te r m i n a t i o n c a m e to th e a t t e n t i o n o f th e a u th o r itie s w ho o b ta in e d a n in ju n c tio n p r e v e n tin g h e r fro m c a r r y in g o u t t h e te r m in a tio n . T h e c a s e t h e n c a m e b e fo re t h e S u p r e m e C o u rt, w h ic h h a d to c o n s id e r w h e t h e r a r tic le 4 0 .3 .3 m e a n t t h a t th e g irl c o u ld b e p r e v e n te d fro m o b ta in in g a n a b o rtio n . T h e c o u r t h e ld t h a t a n a b o r tio n w a s p e rm is s ib le u n d e r th i s a r tic le w h e re i t co u ld b e s h o w n t h a t th e r e w a s a r e a l a n d s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k to h e r life, a s o p p o se d to h e a lth , a n d th i s in c lu d e d th e r i s k o f s e lf -d e s tru c tio n . I n th i s c a se , th e c o u r t a c c e p te d t h a t th e g ir l w a s s u ic id a l a n d c o u ld t a k e h e r o w n life i f fo rc ed to go th r o u g h w ith th e p re g n a n c y . T h e t e r m in a tio n th e r e f o r e w o u ld h a v e b e e n le g a l in I r e la n d a n d a s s u c h th e in ju n c tio n p r e v e n tin g h e r fro m tr a v e llin g i n o r d e r to s e c u re a b r o a d w h a t w o u ld b e a la w fu l a b o r tio n in th i s co u n ty , w a s ille g a l. H o w ev er, th e r ig h t to tr a v e l w a s d e n ie d to a ll w o m e n w ho d id n o t com e w ith in th e te r m s o f th e X c a se , in o th e r w o rd s w h e re a w o m a n ’s life w a s n o t a t r i s k s h e co u ld b e p r e v e n te d fro m tr a v e llin g to o b ta in a n a b o rtio n . T h is le d to a f u r t h e r a m e n d m e n t to th e C o n s titu tio n in 1992, s p e c ific a lly p ro v id in g fo r th e r ig h t to t r a v e l to re c e iv e a t e r m in a tio n 36. A r ig h t to d is s e m in a te in f o r m a tio n w ith in I r e la n d o n c lin ic s a b r o a d w h ic h p ro v id e d s u c h s e rv ic e s w a s a lso in s e r te d in to th e C o n s titu tio n 37. D e s p ite
34
Article 40.3.3 inserted by the Eight Amendment to the Constitution.35
Attorney General v X (1992) 1 IR 1.36
The provision, included in 1993, reads “This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state”.37
The provision, included in 1993, reads “This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state”.th e s e d e v e lo p m e n ts , th e p o s itio n w ith r e s p e c t to re c e iv in g a t e r m in a tio n in I r e la n d is s till u n c le a r. F ro m th e d e c isio n in X i t a p p e a r s t h a t i f a “r e a l a n d s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k ” to th e life o f th e m o th e r e x is ts t h e n a t e r m i n a t i o n is p e r m is s ib le , b u t i t is i n n o w a y c e r t a i n h o w s u c h a r i s k is to b e e s t a b l i s h e d . A l a t e r a t t e m p t to c la r if y t h e p o s itio n b y r e f e r e n d u m w a s d e f e a te d i n 2 0 0 2 . T h e r e l e v a n t p ro v is io n , T h e P r o te c tio n o f H u m a n L ife i n P r e g n a n c y B ill 2 0 0 2 w a s n a r r o w ly d e f e a te d w ith 4 9 .5 8 % v o tin g i n fa v o u r a n d 50.4 2 % a g a in s t. N o s u b s e q u e n t le g is la tiv e a t t e m p t s h a v e b e e n m a d e to d e a l w ith th e is s u e .
The C onstitu tion and a righ t to die
T h e I r i s h C o n s titu tio n does n o t s p e c ific a lly r e f e r to a r i g h t to d ie o r to e u t h a n a s i a . T h e p r in c ip a l p ro v is io n w h ic h im p a c ts o n th e s e is s u e s is a g a in a r tic le 4 0 .3 .2 w h e re th e S t a t e is r e q u ir e d to “p r o te c t fro m u n j u s t a t t a c k “ a n d “v in d ic a te ” th e life o f t h e e v e ry c itiz e n . T h e r e le v a n c e o f th i s a r tic le fo r th e p u r p o s e s o f a “r i g h t to d ie ” w a s c o n s id e re d i n th e c a s e o f R e a W a rd o f C o u rt (N o 2)38. T h e c a s e c o n c e rn e d th e fa te o f a 4 5 -y e a r-o ld w o m a n w h o w a s in a n a lm o s t p e r s i s t e n t v e g e ta tiv e s t a t e a s a r e s u l t o f c o m p lic a tio n s fo llo w in g a r o u tin e p ro c e d u re . H e r fa m ily s o u g h t to h a v e h e r n o u r is h m e n t re m o v e d so t h a t s h e b e a llo w e d to d ie a ‘n a t u r a l d e a t h ’, a n d th e S u p r e m e C o u rt w as c a lle d u p o n to d ec id e w h e th e r t h is w a s c o n s is te n t w ith th e C o n s titu tio n a l g u a r a n t e e to h a v e o n e ’s life p ro te c te d a n d v in d ic a te d b y t h e S ta te . T h e C o u rt h e ld t h a t a llo w in g h e r to d ie a n a t u r a l d e a th w a s c o n s is te n t w ith th e C o n s ti tu tio n , a s H a m ilto n C J s ta te d ,
“A s th e p ro c e ss o f d y in g is p a r t , a n d a n u l tim a te in e v ita b le c o n se q u e n c e , o f life, th e r ig h t to life n e c e s s a r ily im p lie s th e r i g h t to h a v e n a t u r e t a k e its c o u rs e a n d to d ie a n a t u r a l d e a t h a n d , u n le s s th e in d iv id u a l c o n c e rn e d so w is h e s , n o t to h a v e life a r tif ic ia lly m a in ta in e d b y th e p ro v is io n o f n o u r is h m e n t b y a b n o r m a l a r tif ic ia l m e a n s , w h ic h h a v e no c u r a tiv e e ffect a n d w h ic h a r e in te n d e d m e re ly to p ro lo n g life ”.
I n th i s c a se , a s th e p a t i e n t w a s a w a r d o f c o u rt, th e d e c isio n to h a v e h e r n o u r is h m e n t w ith h e ld w o u ld b e m a d e b y t h e c o u rt, a c tin g o n th e b a s is o f w h a t i t p e rc e iv e d w a s th e p a t i e n t ’s b e s t in te r e s ts . T h is d e c isio n h o w ev er, co u ld o n ly a p p ly to th e w ith d r a w a l o f t r e a t m e n t so t h a t a “n a t u r a l d e a t h ” o c c u rre d , i t c o u ld n o t g iv e r is e to a r i g h t to h a v e life te r m i n a t e d b y a r tif ic ia l m e a n s . T h is e s s e n tia lly m e a n s t h a t w h ile C o n s titu tio n a lly a r i g h t to d ie by “n a t u r a l ” m e a n s e x is ts , th e r e is n o r e l a t e d r i g h t to d ie b y e u t h a n a s i a o r b y o th e r d e lib e r a te m e a n s .
4. A doption o f In tern a tio n a l Law
I r e la n d h a s a d u a lis t le g a l s y s te m , w h ic h m e a n s t h a t b e fo re i n t e r n a t i o n a l la w c a n fo rm p a r t o f t h e d o m e s tic le g a l s y s te m i t m u s t b e in c o rp o ra te d in to I r i s h la w b y P a r lia m e n t. A s s t a t e d b y a r tic le 2 9 .6 6, “N o i n te r n a tio n a l a g r e e m e n t s h a ll b e p a r t o f th e d o m e s tic la w o f th e S t a t e s a v e a s m a y be d e te r m in e d b y th e O ir e a c h ta s ( P a r lia m e n t) ”.
T h e p r a c tic a l e ffe c t o f th i s p ro v is io n is t h a t w h e n th e I r i s h g o v e rn m e n t s ig n s a n in t e r n a t i o n a l t r e a t y i t h a s n o le g a l e ffe c t o n th e I r i s h d o m e s tic le g a l s y s te m (it m a y o f c o u rs e r e s u l t i n s ig n if ic a n t d ip lo m a tic p r e s s u r e to co m p ly w ith th e t r e a t y p ro v is io n s b u t le g a lly th e r e is no d u ty to do so). W h e n I r e la n d s ig n e d th e E u r o p e a n C o n v e n tio n o n H u m a n R ig h ts fo r in s ta n c e th e I r i s h c o u r ts c o u ld a n d d id , re f u s e to b e b o u n d b y th e ju r is p r u d e n c e o f th e E u r o p e a n C o u r t o f H u m a n R ig h ts . I t w a s n o t u n til th e s ig n in g in to la w o f th e E u r o p e a n C o n v e n tio n o n H u m a n R ig h ts A ct 2 0 0 3 t h a t th e s e r ig h ts a n d ju r is p r u d e n c e fo rm e d p a r t o f I r e la n d ’s d o m e s tic s y s te m . M o re re c e n tly , i t h a s b eco m e th e p ra c tic e fo r th e I r i s h g o v e rn m e n t to in tr o d u c e le g is la tio n to b r in g I r e la n d in to c o m p lia n c e w ith th e v a r io u s t r e a t i e s in a d v a n c e o f s ig n in g th e m (fo r e x a m p le th e E q u a l S t a t u s A ct 2 0 0 0 a n d th e E m p lo y m e n t E q u a lity A ct 1998 w e re in tr o d u c e d p r io r to r a tif y in g th e C o n v e n tio n a g a in s t R a c ia l D is c ri m in a tio n a n d I r e la n d is c u r r e n tly in th e p ro c e ss o f in tr o d u c in g le g is la tio n to allo w fo r th e r a tif ic a tio n fo r t h e U N C o n v e n tio n o n th e R ig h ts o f P e o p le w ith D is a b ilitie s .)
B e c a u s e o f th e d u a lis t n a t u r e o f o u r le g a l s y s te m , I r e la n d ’s m e m b e r s h ip o f t h e E u r o p e a n U n io n (o r E u r o p e a n E c o n o m ic C o m m u n ity a s i t w a s t h e n k n o w n ) n e c e s s ita te d a s im ila r d o m e s tic in c o r p o r a tio n o f a ll th e c h a n g e s E u r o p e a n m e m b e r s h ip w o u ld b r in g a b o u t. A s th e T r e a ty o f R o m e w o u ld h a v e f a r r e a c h in g im p lic a tio n s , th i s d o m e s tic in c o r p o r a tio n w a s e ffe c ted in tw o w a y s. T h e f ir s t w a s a C o n s titu tio n a l a m e n d m e n t, n o w a r tic le 2 9 .3 .1 0 , w h ic h a llo w e d fo r b o th th e s u p r e m a c y o f E u r o p e a n L a w a n d a lso th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f a n y a c tio n r e q u ir e d b y v ir tu e o f E u r o p e a n m e m b e r s h ip a s s e t d o w n in th e T r e a ty o f R o m e 1957. T h e a r tic le r e a d a s follow s:
“N o p ro v is io n o f th i s C o n s titu tio n in v a lid a te s la w s e n a c te d , a c ts d o n e o r m e a s u r e s a d o p te d b y th e S t a t e w h ic h a r e n e c e s s ita te d b y o u r m e m b e r s h ip o f th e E u r o p e a n U n io n o r o f th e C o m m u n itie s , o r p r e v e n ts la w s e n a c te d , a c ts d o n e o r m e a s u r e s a d o p te d b y th e E u r o p e a n U n io n o r b y th e C o m m u n itie s o r th e in s t i t u t i o n s th e re o f, o r b y b o d ie s c o m p e te n t u n d e r th e T r e a tie s e s t a b l i s h in g t h e C o m m u n itie s , fro m h a v in g th e force o f la w i n th e S t a t e ”39.
39 It is worthwhile noting that while this provision is currently article 29.4.10 it has, prior to subsequent amendment of the constitution, borne the article numbers 29.4.3, 29.4.5 and 29.4.7.
T h e se c o n d m e a s u r e w a s th e a d o p tio n o f th e E u r o p e a n C o m m u n itie s A ct 1972 p ro v id in g in s e c tio n 2 t h a t a n y m e a s u r e s in tr o d u c e d p u r s u a n t to th e T r e a ty o f R o m e 1957 w o u ld b e b in d in g d o m e s tic a lly 40.
F o llo w in g th e r a tif ic a tio n o f t h e T r e a ty o f R o m e th e n e x t s ig n ific a n t t r e a t y to b e a d o p te d w a s th e S in g le E u r o p e a n A ct 1987 (SE A ). T h e I r is h g o v e rn m e n t s o u g h t to give e ffect to th e S E A b y s im p ly r a tif y in g th e S in g le E u r o p e a n A ct 1987 w ith o u t f u r t h e r a m e n d m e n t to th e C o n s titu tio n , b u t th is w a s c h a lle n g e d b y a m e m b e r o f th e p u b lic , a M r. C ro tty , a s b e in g u n c o n s titu tio n a l. H e a r g u e d t h a t a s th e S in g le E u r o p e a n A ct 1987 w e n t f a r b e y o n d w h a t w a s e n v is a g e d in t h e T r e a ty o f R o m e i t o u g h t to r e q u ir e a c o n s titu tio n a l r e f e r e n d u m . T h a t c a se , C ro tty v A n T a o ise a c h 41, u ltim a te ly c a m e b efo re th e S u p re m e C o u rt a n d le d to a d e c isio n t h a t h a s a ffe c te d th e a d o p tio n o f a ll s u b s e q u e n t E u r o p e a n T r e a tie s in I r e la n d . T h e C o u r t h e ld t h a t in o n e a s p e c t, t h a t o f T itle I I I o f th e S E A , w h ic h r e q u ir e d m e m b e r s t a t e s to “t a k e a c c o u n t” o f th e fo re ig n p o licy of o th e r m e m b e r s t a t e s w h e n d r a f tin g t h e i r o w n , th e E u r o p e a n U n io n w a s m o v in g in to a n e n tir e ly n e w d ir e c tio n to t h e T r e a ty of R o m e t h a t w a s “p o litic a l” a s w e ll a s econom ic. A s s u c h i t w a s n o t a m o n g th e c h a n g e s e n v is a g e d in a r tic le 2 9 .4 .1 0 a n d r e q u ir e d a f u r t h e r c o n s titu tio n a l a m e n d m e n t. T h e e ffect o f C ro tty th e r e f o r e is to r e q u ir e t h a t I r e la n d h o ld s a r e f e r e n d u m w h e n a n e w T r e a ty is b e in g a d o p te d if t h a t T r e a ty goes b e y o n d t h a t w h ic h h a s a lr e a d y b e e n a p p ro v e d b y th e C o n s titu tio n in a r e f e r e n d u m . T h e d iffic u lty o f c o u rs e is in id e n tif y in g c a te g o ric a lly w h e th e r a n e w t r e a t y s im p ly b u ild s o n th e a im s a n d o b je c tiv e s o f e x is tin g tr e a t i e s , o r a s in th e c a se o f T itle II I o f th e S E A b r in g s a b o u t a n e w d e p a r tu r e fo r th e E u r o p e a n U n io n . T h e p r a c tic e th e r e f o r e , s in c e t h e d e c is io n i n C r o tty , h a s b e e n to h o ld a r e f e r e n d u m w h ic h if p a s s e d , w o u ld e n s u r e th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f th e T re a ty in q u e s tio n . So far, a ll tr e a tie s h a v e b e e n a d o p te d b y th e p eo p le in a r e f e r e n d u m , w ith tw o ex c e p tio n s. T h e f ir s t w a s th e N ice T reaty , w h ic h w a s fa m o u sly re je c te d b y th e I r is h p o p u lace b y a m a rg in o f 46% to 34% in 2001. T h e follow ing y e a r it w a s c o n tro v e rsia lly p u t to a v o te a g a in w h e re it w a s a d o p te d b y a m a rg in of 63% to 37%. T h e second t r e a ty to h a v e b e e n re je c te d w as th e L isb o n T reaty, w h ic h w a s d e fe a te d w ith 53% v o tin g a g a in s t th e T re a ty a s oppo sed to 46% in fa v o u r w h e n it w a s v o te d o n b y th e I r is h p eo p le in J u n e 2008.
5. C onclusion
T h is a r tic le h a s d e a lt w ith o n ly lim ite d a s p e c ts o f th e C o n s titu tio n b u t o n e s, i t is h o p e d , w h ic h g iv e so m e in d ic a tio n a s to th e c h a n g e s w h ic h h a v e t a k e n p la c e w ith in I r e la n d sin c e i t ’s a d o p tio n in 1937. T h e C o n s titu tio n a lly
40 The effect of the passing of the Act was to incorporate the Treaty of Rome into the Irish legal system. The effect of the Constitutional provision was to render this constitutional.
d u a lis t n a t u r e o f o u r le g a l s y s te m a n d t h e im p lic a tio n s o f th e p o litic a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e C ro tty d e c isio n h a s m e a n t t h a t w e c a n m e a s u r e in so m e s e n s e I r e la n d ’s r e la tio n s h ip w ith th e E u r o p e a n U n io n (E U ) th o r o u g h its a c c e p ta n c e o r o th e r w is e o f th e v a r io u s E u r o p e a n T r e a tie s . T h is r e la tio n s h ip c a n b e s e e n to b e a la r g e ly c o rd ia l o n e, w ith th e I r i s h p u b lic g e n e r a lly e n th u s ia s tic a lly e n d o r s in g e a c h n e w E u r o p e a n T r e a ty 42. T h e m o re r e c e n t re je c tio n o f b o th th e N ice a n d L is b o n T r e a tie s r u n s c o n tr a r y to th i s g e n e r a lly p o s itiv e a c c e p ta n c e 43. W h ile th e i n itia l r e je c tio n o f N ice c o u ld b e b la m e d on a f e a r fo r I r e la n d ’s n e u t r a l i t y th e s it u a t i o n w ith L is b o n a p p e a r s m o re co m p lic a te d w ith m a n y c o n fu se d a s to w h a t th e L is b o n T r e a ty w a s a b o u t44. I t is a lso s ig n if ic a n t t h a t th e m a r g in b e tw e e n th o s e in fa v o u r o f e a c h n e w T r e a ty a n d th o s e a g a in s t is g ro w in g s te a d ily n a r r o w e r in d ic a tin g a g ro w in g n a tio n a l s k e p tic is m fo r th e E u r o p e a n p ro je c t.
T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d d e v e lo p m e n t o f c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts a lso re v e a ls c h a n g in g s o c ie ta l v a lu e s i n I r e la n d . T h e re c o g n itio n o f a m a r i t a l r ig h t to p riv a c y in M cG ee a n d th e u s e o f th i s r ig h t to d is m a n tle a r e p r e s s iv e r e s t r i c tio n o f a c c e ss to c o n tr a c e p tio n r e f le c te d a g ro w in g in d e p e n d e n c e fro m s tr ic t C a th o lic ideology, a t le a s t w ith in o u r c o u rts . T h is w a s f u r t h e r e v id e n c e d b y th e in tr o d u c tio n o f d iv o rce in 1996. T h e s lig h t m a jo r ity w ith w h ic h divorce w a s in tr o d u c e d h o w ev er, re v e a le d t h a t th e d e s ir e to b e in d e p e n d e n t fro m re lig io u s m o r a lity w a s a lim ite d o n e a n d n o t s h a r e d u n iv e r s a lly o r e v e n b y a s ig n ific a n t m a jo r ity o f th e I r i s h p o p u la c e . O n so m e is s u e s th e r e h a s b e e n o n ly lim ite d c o n s titu tio n a l d e v e lo p m e n t. T h e r i g h t to d ie is a n a r r o w o ne, in v o lv in g v e r y l ittle in d iv id u a l a u to n o m y o r choice. T h e r i g h t to a t e r m i n a tio n o f a p r e g n a n c y is a lso lim ite d . F o llo w in g fro m t h e X c a se , a lim ite d r ig h t a p p e a r s to e x is t w h e re th e life o f th e m o th e r is in d a n g e r a lth o u g h th e p a r a m e t e r s o f t h is a r e u n c le a r a n d th e r e is u n d e r s ta n d a b le i f r e g r e tta b le p o litic a l r e lu c ta n c e to le g is la te o n t h e is s u e . O n o th e r s m a t t e r s th e C o n s titu tio n a p p e a r s to b e o u t o f s te p w ith a c h a n g in g I r e la n d b u t m o re in k e e p in g w ith a c o n s e rv a tiv e C a th o lic ideology. T h e d e f in itio n o f th e fa m ily r e m a in s s tu b b o r n ly t h a t o f a m o d e l t h a t d o es n o t r e p r e s e n t a s ig n ific a n t m in o r ity o f fa m ily u n i t s in I r e la n d . S t a t u t o r y d e v e lo p m e n ts to a ffo rd c o - h a b itin g a n d
41
Crotty v An Taoiseach (1987) I.R.713.42
On entry in 1972, voter turnout was 71% with 83% voting in favour and 17% against; for the SEA 1987 voter turnout was 43.9% with 69.9% in favour and 30.1% against; for the Maastrict Treaty in 1992 voter turnout was 57.2% with 68.7% voting in favour and 30.8% against and for the Amsterdam Treaty in 1998 voter turnout was 56.2% with 62% voting in favour and 38% against. Source: Research Paper 01/57 (2001) House of Commons Library, at p 9.43
The rejection of the Nice Treaty in June 2001 took place with a historically low turnout figure of 35%, with 46.1% voting against the Treaty and 53.9% against. The Irish government put the Treaty to the people again in a second referendum in 2002. With a higher voter turnout of 49.47% the Treaty was accepted with a majority of 62.89% in favour as opposed to 49.29% against. See[online] <http://electionsireland.org/results/referendum>.h o m o s e x u a l c o u p le s g r e a t e r r ig h ts , w h ile w e lc o m e d , w ill do n o th in g to e x te n d to th e m th e c o n s titu tio n a l p ro te c tio n s a ffo rd e d to fa m ilie s , so lo n g as it is d e fin e d a s o n e b a s e d o n m a r r ia g e .
I t is th r o u g h th e s e d e v e lo p m e n ts t h a t th e I r i s h C o n s titu tio n h a s p ro v e d it s e l f to b e a r o b u s t in d ic a to r o f b o th th e c h a n g in g face o f I r e la n d a n d th e p o litic a l a n d a t tim e s c o n s e rv a tiv e v a lu e s h e ld b y i t ’s c itiz e n s.
S treszczen ie
A u to r k a w sw o im o p r a c o w a n iu p r z e d s ta w ia w y b ra n e z a g a d n ie n ia z K o n s ty tu c ji I r la n d ii z 1937 r. S z c z e g ó ln a u w a g a z o s ta ła p o św ię c o n a o ch ro n ie ro d z in y ( k tó ra w zgodzie z k a to lic k ą k o n c e p c ją k o n s ty tu c ji b a z u je n a m a łż e ń s tw ie osób płci p rzeciw n e j), r a ty fik o w a n iu p rz e z O ire a c h ta s (P a r la m e n t) p ra w a m ięd zy n aro d o w eg o , o c h ro n ie życia (ze szcze g ó ln y m u w z g lę d n ie n ie m ży cia p o czętego). A r ty k u ł z a w ie r a ta k ż e in te r e s u ją c e ro z w a ż a n ia w o d n ie s ie n iu do p r a w a do g o d n ej śm ie rc i, a ta k ż e do e u ta n a z ji. A u to r k a p o w o łu je się zaró w n o n a n o rm y p r a w a k o n s ty tu c y jn e g o , n o rm y p r a w a e u ro p e js k ie g o , j a k i n a case-
