A UK court has upheld the government’s decision to continue exporting components for F-35 fighter jets to Israel, ruling that the move was lawful despite concerns about potential risks related to international humanitarian law.
The case was brought by Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organisation based in the West Bank, which challenged the Department for Business and Trade over its decision to allow the export of F-35 parts. This decision came even as the UK temporarily suspended some other arms export licences in 2023 following an internal assessment of the situation in Gaza.
While the UK government acknowledged there was a risk that exported equipment could be used in ways inconsistent with international humanitarian law, it chose not to suspend licences related to F-35 components. These parts are part of a broader international supply system and can be used by participating countries, including Israel, which operates F-35 aircraft.
Government officials argued that halting these exports would have wider consequences, potentially disrupting the global F-35 programme and affecting international defence cooperation, including with NATO allies and the United States.
The High Court judges, Stephen Males and Karen Steyn, concluded that decisions regarding the UK’s participation in international defence programmes fall within the scope of government policy and are not for the courts to decide.
Al-Haq had argued that continuing the export was incompatible with the UK’s obligations under international law, including the Geneva Conventions. The court dismissed this challenge, stating that the matter involved broader strategic considerations.
The military operation in Gaza began after the October 2023 attack by Hamas-led fighters, in which around 1,200 people were killed and more than 250 taken hostage. According to authorities in Gaza, ongoing hostilities have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and widespread displacement.
Following the ruling, Al-Haq expressed disappointment but noted that the legal challenge had contributed to increased scrutiny of UK arms export policies. Legal representatives for the organization said they were considering grounds for an appeal.
Several humanitarian and legal organizations, including Oxfam, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, had intervened in the case and also expressed concern about the outcome.
A UK government spokesperson responded to the judgment by stating that the country maintains one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes globally and that all licences remain under continuous review.
