The UK High Court has dismissed a legal challenge by rights groups aiming to stop the export of British-manufactured F-35 fighter jet components to Israel. This decision concludes a protracted 20-month legal battle that has drawn significant public attention and debate.
In a comprehensive 72-page judgment released on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn focused on whether the court had the authority to mandate the UK to withdraw from a crucial multilateral defense collaboration. The judges concluded that such decisions are political and should be left to the executive branch, which is accountable to Parliament and the electorate.
“Under our constitution, that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts,” the ruling stated.
Despite the setback, the groups behind the challenge, including Al-Haq and the UK-based Global Legal Action Network (Glan), are contemplating an appeal. Shawan Jabarin, Al-Haq’s general director, emphasized the case’s impact, noting its role in last year’s suspension of approximately 30 arms export licenses to Israel.
Reactions and Implications
Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch, expressed profound disappointment with the ruling. She criticized the judicial deference to the executive, arguing that it leaves Palestinians in Gaza vulnerable to violations of international law.
“Judicial deference to the executive in this case has left the Palestinians in Gaza without access to the protections of international law, despite the government and the court acknowledging that there is a serious risk that UK equipment might be used to facilitate or carry out atrocities against them,” Ahmed said.
Labour MP Richard Burgon also voiced his concerns, urging the government to take moral responsibility and consider an immediate parliamentary vote on the matter. He warned that the judgment of history and the Palestinian people would be more significant than any court ruling.
“If it makes the wrong decision, it won’t necessarily be the courts that they need to be scared of in terms of judgment. It will be the judgment of people, the judgment of history, but mostly importantly, the judgment of the Palestinian people who deserve self-determination,” Burgon stated.
Background and Context
The legal challenge was initiated by Glan and Al-Haq in late October 2023, shortly after Israel launched an offensive in Gaza following attacks by Hamas. Despite early concerns from the Foreign Office regarding Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, UK arms exports to Israel continued under the Tory government.
In September, the newly elected Labour government suspended around 30 export licenses for UK-made arms, citing a clear risk of their use in Gaza. However, the licensing of F-35 components sent to a global spare parts pool remained exempt, prompting the legal focus on these parts.
UK-made F-35 components constitute 15 percent of each aircraft, which Israel has used extensively in its military campaigns in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran.
The UK government argued that halting the export of these parts unilaterally could impact the global F-35 fleet and threaten international peace and security. However, the rights groups contended that the UK is obligated under the Arms Trade Treaty and the Genocide Convention to cease these exports.
Expert Opinions and Future Outlook
Legal experts have highlighted the case as a significant test of the UK’s arms export policies and its adherence to international treaties. The court documents revealed internal debates within the UK government, including unsuccessful attempts by senior defense officials to suspend the parts through negotiations with American counterparts.
With over 56,500 casualties in Gaza since October 2023, according to the Gaza health ministry, the humanitarian impact remains a pressing concern. The case has spotlighted the complexities of arms export policies and the balance between national security interests and international legal obligations.
The rights groups’ consideration of an appeal suggests that this legal battle may continue, potentially influencing future arms export decisions and international relations. As the situation evolves, the UK government faces ongoing scrutiny over its role in global arms trade and its implications for conflict zones.
