Israel arms exports could be used to breach international law, court told
Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organisation, is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade over arms export licences.
The Government continued sending F-35 fighter jet components to Israel despite knowing there was a āclear riskā that they could be used to ācommit or facilitate a serious violationā of international humanitarian law (IHL), the High Court has been told.
Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organisation, is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade over several decisions not to suspend licences to export weapons and military equipment.
In September, the Labour Government suspended around 30 licences following a review of Israelās compliance with IHL in the ongoing conflict, after the previous Conservative Government refused to do so in December last year and April and May this year.
But an exemption was made for some licences related to components of F-35 fighter jets, and around 330 others continued unaltered, which concerned items such as training and air defence equipment.
Al-Haq is now seeking the green light to challenge the decision not to suspend all licences in September, the move to ācarve outā licences for F-35 components from the suspension, and decisions by the former Tory government not to suspend licences in December 2023 and April and May this year.
The Government is opposing the legal challenge, with its lawyers telling the court that the licensing of arms exports to Israel āis being kept under close and continuous reviewā.
In written submissions for a hearing on Monday, Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said that the suspension was made after the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, had concluded that Israel is ānot committed to complyingā with IHL.
This was itself based on a conclusion that āIsrael had committed possible breaches of IHL in relation to humanitarian access and the treatment of detaineesā, which led the Foreign Office to advise the Department for Business and Trade that there was a āclear riskā that some military equipment to be deployed in Gaza could be used to breach international law.
But Sir James said that the decision to ācarve outā licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the āwhole F-35 programmeā and have a āprofound impact on international peace and securityā.
Mr Healey added that it would āundermine US confidence in the UK and Nato at a critical juncture in our collective history and set back relationsā, and could cause āadversariesā to ātake advantage of any perceived weaknessā.
Sir James said: āIt did not follow from this (September) assessment that all licences to Israel had to be suspended, but only those in respect of which there is a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL.
āNotwithstanding the āclear riskā assessment, for the reasons given in the Defence Secretaryās advice, it has been determined that there is a good reason to depart from the strategic export licensing criteria and not to suspend exports into the F-35 programme.
āThe F-35 carve out accepts that there is clear risk that F-35 components might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL, but determines that in the exceptional circumstances outlined by the Defence Secretary, these exports should nonetheless continue.ā
The war between Israel and Hamas, which began on October 7 last year, has left tens of thousands dead and millions displaced.
The Gaza health ministry says around 43,800 Palestinians have been killed in the war, but the ministry does not distinguish between civilians and combatants.
It has however said women and children make up more than half the fatalities.
The court was told that at the time of the September suspension, 361 licences had been issued for arms exports to Israel.
In her written submissions, Phillippa Kaufmann KC, for Al-Haq, said the Government was using a ācategorically wrongā and āhighly improperā approach to assess whether Israel had breached IHL, which led to āflawedā decisions being made as to whether to suspend licences.
She said: āWhat is in question here is whether its (Israelās) stated commitment is a true commitment, and in order to make that determination the best evidence is how has it gone about these hostilities.
āWhat one is looking for is, for example, patterns indicating systemic non-compliance with international humanitarian law.
āThe defendant simply does not have information from Israel about individual acts of military action, strikes, demolitions.
āIt does not have that because Israel would not give it to them.ā
Ms Kaufmann added that the challenge to earlier decisions āraise important issues of principleā which were āstrongly in the public interestā.
But speaking in court in London, Sir James continued that āhistoric decisionsā taken by the previous government had been āsupersededā by the September decision, making challenges to them āacademicā.
The hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain is expected to conclude later on Monday.