The UK High Court rejected a judicial review brought by Al-Haq and GLAN that sought to block UK exports of components for Israel’s F-35 fighter jet to Palestinian groups such as Al-Haq. Protestors contended these supplies violated British and international law, potentially implicating Britain in war crimes; but judges held such defence matters fall under executive authority instead of judicial jurisdiction. [Sources for more information:
wikipedia.org | APN News | aljazeera]. [Broughly translated, these sources would include […]
Wikipedia | APN News | aljazeera] +13 [sources and] Its Aljazeera] [sources for more]. [Sources for more details:alitatjazeera].com].
Background of the Legal Challenge On September 20, 2024, the UK government suspended around 30 of Israel’s 350 arms export licenses following a review that concluded there was a “clear risk” of violation of international humanitarian law during the Gaza Conflict (reuters.com +6 +aljazeera +6 || en.wikipedia +6)
However, it made an exception for F-35 parts due to their vulnerability in terms of global supply chain management and national security concerns. British-made components destined for a shared “spares pool” can then be used by partner nations–including Israel–for maintaining their fleets (Jpost.com/jpost +15 for details; aljazeera/reuters +15 and so forth).
Al-Haq and GLAN contended that Britain had breached both domestic law and its obligations under Geneva and Genocide Conventions by permitting UK parts to facilitate Israeli strikes against Gaza that may amount to war crimes (Reuters.com/+10 ; aljazeera.com/+10 ; thejc/ +10)
Justices Stephen Males and Karen Steyn issued a 72-page ruling, in which they stated that continuing the supply of F-35 components is a political choice under our constitution, “a matter for executive action… accountable directly to parliament… not courts”. For further reading: france24.com/feed/15; apnews/feed/15 and thejc/feed15 (all links open in new tab).
They emphasized how an interruption to the F-35 programme could jeopardise NATO cohesion and undermine American trust in British defense commitments, according to Jewishnews.co.uk and The Guardian/Reuters respectively.
Although acknowledging Israel’s compliance gaps with international humanitarian law, the Court held that geopolitical and security considerations lie with ministers instead of judges when assessing geopolitical and security interests, not judges (The JC, Reuter’s and ApNews all provide useful coverage here).
ActionAid UK, representing Al-Haq’s position, denounced the ruling as morally bankrupt and Co-CEO Hannah Bond accused the government of placing human suffering as simply part of doing business, calling on ministers to go further than what courts permit by ending all arms exports to Israel and loosening Gaza blockade (ft.com; the Guardian; NGO Monitor) (Reuters/AFP).
Lawyers from GLAN highlighted the danger of providing components potentially used in airstrikes on civilian areas in Gaza, such as those used by Israeli forces during airstrikes on Gaza that hit densely populated civilian zones (The Guardian.com/aljazeera.com, AAP News/APNews.com etc). They stressed the severity of this action against their supply of components potentially used in those attacks on densely populated civilian zones within Gaza (The Guardian/aljazeera/APnews.com etc).
Warning was given that by continuing its support for F-35 aircraft, Britain could risk becoming complicit in violations of international laws of war.
Government Justification and Industry Position The UK government justified their carve-out by asserting that suspending parts supply would disrupt an essential multinational weapons programme, weaken NATO interoperability and compromise Britain’s standing with U.S. allies (France24.com/+15), Reuter’s/reuters.com and The Guardian/Theguardian respectively.
About 15% of F-35 components–such as laser targeting systems–are manufactured in the UK (en.wikipedia.org, apnews.com and aljazeera.com all source).
Implications and Next Steps
Campaigners have yet to announce whether they plan to appeal the High Court ruling, though its implications and next steps have become clear. Critics claim allowing arms exports that may harm civilians undermines Britain’s promise to uphold international norms.
This decision shifts the debate back into Parliament and the executive branch. MPs, human rights activists, diplomats and members of both political parties could intensify scrutiny as pressure builds for legislative or policy-level action to take place. Internal dissension within the Foreign Office–over 300 staff have raised concerns regarding UK involvement with Israel’s Gaza operations according to reports–is also growing with this development. With respect to external involvement with Gaza operations being reported within Israel’s Gaza operations by British troops over recent weeks reportedly rising at unprecedented rates.
–the focus will remain on government export decisions.