On Monday, London’s High Court ruled that Britain’s decision to permit the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, even with the acknowledgment that they could potentially be used in violation of international humanitarian law in Gaza, was lawful.
Al-Haq, an organization operating in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, has initiated legal proceedings against the UK’s Department for Business and Trade. This action follows the department’s choice to exempt F-35 components from a suspension of certain arms export licenses implemented last year.
The United Kingdom has determined that Israel is not adhering to international humanitarian law concerning humanitarian access and the treatment of detainees amid its ongoing military operations following Hamas’ attack in October 2023.
Britain has opted to “carve out” F-35 licenses, as government officials assert that suspending these licenses would disrupt a global program responsible for supplying parts for the aircraft, potentially affecting international security.
The Ministry of Defence stated that any disruption of this nature would “undermine U.S. confidence in the UK and NATO.”
During a hearing last month, Al-Haq contended that the decision was unlawful, asserting that it violated Britain’s commitments under international law, particularly the Geneva Convention.
The High Court has dismissed the challenge brought by the group, marking what is thought to be the sole legal case in Britain concerning arms sales to Israel, as stated in a written ruling.
Judges Stephen Males and Karen Steyn clarified that the case “has not been about whether the UK should supply arms or other military equipment to Israel.”
The central question raised was whether the court has the authority to mandate Britain’s withdrawal from the international F-35 program, a move that ministers contend is crucial for both British and global security.
The judges stated, “Under our constitution, that highly sensitive and political issue falls within the purview of the executive, which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, rather than the courts.”
The intention of Al-Haq regarding a potential appeal against the judgment remains uncertain at this time.
