UK Court Reviews Arms Exports Amid Claims of Violations in Gaza
Government lawyers argue against claims of genocide and breaches of humanitarian law as the judicial review into arms exports to Israel proceeds.
A high court case in London has commenced, challenging the UK government's handling of arms exports to Israel in light of the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
During the proceedings, government lawyers maintained that there is no evidence indicating a genocide is occurring in Gaza, nor that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are targeting women and children specifically.
The judicial review is particularly focused on the legality of continuing to sell parts and components for the F-35 fighter jets, which may be utilized by Israel in operations in Gaza.
As part of its defense, the UK government argued that it is not legally obligated to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law by other states, but rather to avoid breaches within its own jurisdiction.
The case has been brought forth by Al-Haq, a Palestinian rights organization, supported by the Global Legal Action Network, as well as by Amnesty International, Oxfam, and Human Rights Watch.
Raza Husain KC, representing Al-Haq, highlighted the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza, which he described as difficult to articulate.
In September, the Labour government suspended most arms export licenses to Israel but allowed an exception for the F-35 program, citing the need to maintain international peace and security, particularly related to the military context in Ukraine.
The government argued that suspending all UK exports into the F-35 program could jeopardize NATO operations.
Government lawyers estimated that the likelihood of UK-manufactured components being used in Israeli military operations was minimal, asserting that the IDF ranks among the world's most advanced militaries and possesses extensive resources.
They contended that the cessation of these exports would have little impact on conflict operations in Gaza.
The judicial review process has taken nearly a year to reach court, during which the government argued that its foreign policy decisions are not subject to judicial review.
The legal team for Al-Haq asserted that the carve-out for the F-35 program conflicts with the UK's obligations under domestic and international law, including various humanitarian treaties.
The government presented documentation indicating that previous evaluations found no evidence of intent by Israel to commit genocide, stating that international assessments had not suggested a plausible risk of such actions occurring.
The panel, consisting of Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn, is expected to conclude the hearing later this week, with a decision to be issued in writing at a future date.
In the context of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where reports indicate significant civilian casualties and displacement, the case raises critical questions regarding the responsibilities of states in arms trade and adherence to international law.
During the proceedings, government lawyers maintained that there is no evidence indicating a genocide is occurring in Gaza, nor that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are targeting women and children specifically.
The judicial review is particularly focused on the legality of continuing to sell parts and components for the F-35 fighter jets, which may be utilized by Israel in operations in Gaza.
As part of its defense, the UK government argued that it is not legally obligated to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law by other states, but rather to avoid breaches within its own jurisdiction.
The case has been brought forth by Al-Haq, a Palestinian rights organization, supported by the Global Legal Action Network, as well as by Amnesty International, Oxfam, and Human Rights Watch.
Raza Husain KC, representing Al-Haq, highlighted the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza, which he described as difficult to articulate.
In September, the Labour government suspended most arms export licenses to Israel but allowed an exception for the F-35 program, citing the need to maintain international peace and security, particularly related to the military context in Ukraine.
The government argued that suspending all UK exports into the F-35 program could jeopardize NATO operations.
Government lawyers estimated that the likelihood of UK-manufactured components being used in Israeli military operations was minimal, asserting that the IDF ranks among the world's most advanced militaries and possesses extensive resources.
They contended that the cessation of these exports would have little impact on conflict operations in Gaza.
The judicial review process has taken nearly a year to reach court, during which the government argued that its foreign policy decisions are not subject to judicial review.
The legal team for Al-Haq asserted that the carve-out for the F-35 program conflicts with the UK's obligations under domestic and international law, including various humanitarian treaties.
The government presented documentation indicating that previous evaluations found no evidence of intent by Israel to commit genocide, stating that international assessments had not suggested a plausible risk of such actions occurring.
The panel, consisting of Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn, is expected to conclude the hearing later this week, with a decision to be issued in writing at a future date.
In the context of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where reports indicate significant civilian casualties and displacement, the case raises critical questions regarding the responsibilities of states in arms trade and adherence to international law.
