AUTHOR

    FRANCIS A. BOYLE is a leading American expert in international law. He was
    responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the
    American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
    He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and
    represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court. He served as legal adviser to
    the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to
    1993. In 2007, he delivered the Bertrand Russell Peace Lectures. Professor Boyle
    teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign and is author of,
    inter alia, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations
    of World Order, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Palestine, Palestinians and
    International Law, Destroying World Order, Biowarfare & Terrorism,  Tackling
    America’s Toughest Questions, The Tamil Genocide by Sri Lanka and The
    Palestinian Right of Return Under International Law.  He holds a Doctor of Law
    Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard
    University.


UNITED IRELAND,
HUMAN RIGHTS AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW

Francis A. Boyle

FOR US ORDERS




FOR OVERSEAS ORDERS








ISBN: 978-0-9833539-2-8
$16.95 /  pp. / 2012
Share/Bookmark
TO BUY ALL SIX BOOKS BY
FRANCIS A. BOYLE
SPECIAL ADVOCACY DISCOUNT   
BUY 10 COPIES of "UNITED IRELAND" TO
CIRCULATE   $75 + Shipping $10


    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Dedication        Irish America

    Chapter 1.
    The Irish Hecatomb: The Legal Case for the
    Potato Famine as British Genocide / 19

    Chapter 2
    The Decolonization of Northern Ireland / 64

    Chapter 3.
    Putting Britain’s Colonial War in Ireland
    on Trial in the USA / 89

    Chapter 4.
    The Struggle to Free Joe Doherty / 99

    Chapter 5.
    Opposing the U.S.—U.K. Extradition Treaty / 123

    Chapter 6.
    Advocating the MacBride Principles for
    Northern Ireland / 154

    Chapter 7.
    Sparing Robert John MacBride / 184

    Chapter 8.
    Designing United Ireland / 188

    Index


    SYNOPSIS

    During the past three decades, international legal expert Francis A.
    Boyle has dealt with some of the most difficult problems created by
    Britain’s continued military occupation of six northeast counties in
    Ireland. In so doing, he along with other Irish Americans engaged the
    formidable Irish American domestic lobby in support of the Irish resistance.

    This book addresses some of the most important aspects of their historic
    campaigns—the struggle to prevent deportation of Irish freedom-fighter,
    Joe Doherty, the protest against the U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty of
    2006, the effort to engage U.S. multinationals in implementing the
    MacBride Principles to roll back discrimination against Catholics in
    Northern Ireland.

    But most significantly, Boyle makes the legal case for viewing the
    horrific Irish “Potato Famine”—the Irish Hecatomb—as a result, not of
    laissez-faire economic policy, but of intentional British genocide.

    This is the definitive book on all legal/political/human rights aspects
    of the Irish conflict, including Britain’s international legal
    obligation to decolonize Northern Ireland and going forward, a legal and
    human rights framework for establishing a United Ireland where all Irish
    can live in peace with justice for all irrespective of their differences.

    United Ireland, Human Rights, and International Law is required reading
    for Irish Americans, people living in Ireland, and the Irish Diaspora
    around the world.
FRANCIS BOYLE (right) with SEAN MACBRIDE, S.C.
Foreign Minister for the Republic of Ireland,
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Chief of Staff of the Irish Republican Army

    EXCERPT

    from "Putting Britain’s Colonial War in Ireland
             on Trial in the United States


    It is always a nice little academic exercise for some professor to write and publish a
    scholarly article that analyzes with clinical detachment a highly complicated and
    extremely emotional mixed-dispute involving international law and international
    politics along the lines of the previous chapter. It is quite another thing for that
    professor then to go into a United States Federal District Court on behalf of a
    defendant being prosecuted by the United States government for alleged
    involvement in “international terrorism” and present that scholarly argument under
    oath and subject to cross-examination by an Assistant United States Attorney under
    the auspices of a hostile United Stated Federal District Judge. The courtroom has
    always proven to be the “acid test” for any professor’s scholarly opinion. If the
    professor can withstand withering cross-examination by the U.S. government’s
    attorney and repeated hostile interruptions and questioning by the U.S. government’s
    judge, then that is a pretty good indication that he must know what he is talking
    about and, most importantly, that what he has to say is true. After all, the adversarial
    nature of U.S. courtroom proceedings is specifically designed to bring to light the
    truth so that justice might be administered on the basis of truth. At least that is the
    theory of justice here in America.

    This chapter sets forth a blow-by-blow account of what happened in a United States
    Federal District Court when we put on trial Britain’s colonial war in Ireland in order to
    defend a group of Irish citizens from prosecution by the United States government for
    allegedly trying to purchase military weapons--including and especially a Stinger
    missile--that were allegedly intended to be used by the Irish Republican Army to
    shoot down British military helicopters in Northern Ireland at one of the most intense
    moments in the conflict over there. The reader should get an excellent idea of what
    happened in Federal Court when I presented the arguments set forth in Chapter 1 on
    behalf of their Defense. You are free to draw your own conclusions about the validity
    of what I had to say. But this slightly edited courtroom transcript certainly makes for
    compelling reading.

    Britain’s colonial occupation Army had established military outposts right near the
    non-demarcated “border” between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland that I
    had already tried to tour myself in 1986. The I.R.A. had been so successful in its
    military operations in these “border” areas that it had cutoff the capability of the
    British Army to supply those outposts by ground transportation. So Britain had to
    supply these Army outposts by military helicopters. At all times relevant to these
    proceedings, American Stinger missiles were proving their deadly efficacy in
    Afghanistan where the United States government had provided them
    to the Mujahideen in order to shoot down the Soviet Union’s military helicopters
    prosecuting their criminal invasion, occupation, and war against Afghanistan and its
    People.

    In this case, the basic theory of the Defense was that like the Soviet Union in
    Afghanistan, Britain was fighting an illegal anti-colonial war in Northern Ireland and
    therefore that the I.R.A. had the perfect right to use military force in self-defense
    against military targets, including and especially by employing Stinger missiles. This
    Defense was built upon the theoretical analysis set forth in my then draft working
    paper The Decolonization of Northern Ireland, that is reprinted as later finally revised
    and published as set forth in Chapter 1 above. Throughout this entire prosecution the
    United States government was working at all times in full cooperation with the British
    government--“our great and noble ally.”

    The Federal District Judge was extremely hostile to the Defense and did everything
    possible to shut it down. Furthermore, while the proceedings were taking place, the I.
    R.A. was conducting major military operations against Britain that exerted a highly
    deleterious impact on these legal proceedings here in the United States. Heavy-duty
    security measures were imposed at the courthouse that were specifically intended by
    the U.S. government to exert a negative emotional effect upon the jury. Yet, it was
    well-known that as a matter of policy the I.R.A. did not launch military operations
    anywhere near, in, or upon the United States of America, being its greatest source of
    foreign support.
Did the Irish Famine
Constitute Genocide?
RTWEthePeople
Interview
with
Dr Francis Boyle, Professor
of International Law