The legal battle presented by a coalition of nonprofits, including Al-Haq and the Global Legal Action Network, aimed to challenge ongoing arms exports from the UK to Israel, particularly focusing on parts for F-35 jets. This ruling comes after the UK government suspended a portion of arms sales to Israel due to international law violations concerns.
In September of the previous year, the government halted 30 licenses out of 350 after an assessment suggested that the supplied weapons could in fact contribute to severe breaches of international humanitarian standards. However, it clarified that certain arms, particularly those not directly engaging in the Gaza conflict, would continue to be exported, emphasizing the importance of the F-35 program to global security.
During a four-day hearing, lawyers for the nonprofits insisted that the ongoing arms supply contravened the UK's obligations under the Geneva Conventions and international laws aimed at preventing acts of genocide and protecting civilians. They were backed by organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Yet, the High Court maintained that it lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters concerning whether Israel's actions constituted genocide or war crimes. Instead, the court underscored that the decision to persist with the F-35 program fell within the purview of government ministers. This ruling ensures that the matter remains primarily under the political domain rather than judicial oversight.
In September of the previous year, the government halted 30 licenses out of 350 after an assessment suggested that the supplied weapons could in fact contribute to severe breaches of international humanitarian standards. However, it clarified that certain arms, particularly those not directly engaging in the Gaza conflict, would continue to be exported, emphasizing the importance of the F-35 program to global security.
During a four-day hearing, lawyers for the nonprofits insisted that the ongoing arms supply contravened the UK's obligations under the Geneva Conventions and international laws aimed at preventing acts of genocide and protecting civilians. They were backed by organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Yet, the High Court maintained that it lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters concerning whether Israel's actions constituted genocide or war crimes. Instead, the court underscored that the decision to persist with the F-35 program fell within the purview of government ministers. This ruling ensures that the matter remains primarily under the political domain rather than judicial oversight.
