13 November 2025: The High Court’s decision that it was for the government to decide whether issues of national security, namely the UK’s supply of F-35 components to Israel, outweighed the assessment that the country was not committed to complying with international humanitarian law (IHL), cannot be further challenged in the courts. In its decision yesterday, the Court of Appeal did not rule that the government ‘carve-out’ was itself compatible with IHL but determined that the matter is not justiciable by the court. A decision GLAN argues highlights a shocking accountability gap when it comes to the courts’ ability to assess the application of IHL in the UK.
In June this year, the UK High Court ruled that it was not for the court to decide whether the government’s F-35 ‘carve-out’ decision breaches the UK’s international legal obligations in the case of Al-Haq vs. Secretary of State for Business and Trade. Parliamentarians and experts have been calling for greater accountability measures to ensure a democratic process that is able to fully scrutinise UK arms export licensing decisions.
In its decision the Court of Appeal declined to rule on the lawfulness of the methodology used by the government to assess Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL), a methodology GLAN has found to be critically flawed. The failure by the government to properly assess Israel’s compliance with IHL has allowed the UK to maintain political and material support for the state as it actively commits genocide against the Palestinian people, while avoiding its own legal obligations.
Yesterday’s disappointing decision upholds the government’s claim that suspending British made F-35 parts to the global spare parts pool would be too great a risk to international peace and security. This stance disregards even the most serious of international law violations against Palestinians by Israel, to keep UK exports of fighter jet components flowing. This staggering position puts contracts for weapons manufacturers above the UK’s fundamental obligations under international law. It flies in the face of the conclusion of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, countless legal and human rights bodies, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and internationally renowned scholars, that Israel’s actions amount to genocide. This ruling also comes as a Dutch court last week concluded ‘there is a serious risk Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and violating international humanitarian law’.
Jennine Walker, Senior Lawyer at GLAN said: “In Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people, international humanitarian law is among the casualties. The government would like us to believe they respect it, but their duplicity and moral bankruptcy are clear. Who will hold the government to account for this? Parliament and the courts have failed and declined. The accountability gap is wider than eyes can see.”
The full judgment text is available here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/1433
