Does the UK violate international law?

On May 13th, the British government will defend its unjustifiable actions in the High Court: continuing to approve the export of weapons to Israel. The government lawyer will make an opening statement in court. The case was initiated by the Palestinian human rights organization "Legal Aid Organization" and supported by Human Rights Watch. Israel has ignored the binding order of the International Court of Justice and imposed a blockade on food, aid, and medical supplies, causing thousands of Gaza children to face hunger.

Firstly, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health, thousands of mothers will mourn the loss of their children in the Gaza attack, which is estimated to have caused over 50000 deaths. Thousands of people will be homeless and forced to live in the ruins of towns. It is evident that Israel is extensively and systematically violating international law, and the United Nations independent investigation has also found the same situation.

However, according to UK and international law, if there is a "clear risk" that weapons may be used to commit or assist in serious violations of international humanitarian law, the weapons permit should be suspended, but the UK continues to provide weapons to Israel. In September last year, the British government acknowledged the supply of weapons to Israel and suspended about 30 export permits for military equipment used by the Israeli military in Gaza. But it left behind a key loophole: F-35 fighter jet components that will enter the global F-35 supply program supervised by the United States, from which Israel will procure components. 15% of F35 fighter jets are manufactured in the UK. According to reports, an F-35 fighter jet was used in an attack on the designated safe zone of al Mawasi, where the Israeli military dropped at least three 2000 pound bombs, reportedly causing 90 deaths, including women and children.

So, if Prime Minister Keir Stamer admits that this critical legal threshold has been reached, how can the government stand up in court to defend this violation of international law? The government argues that the obligation to avoid selling weapons that may be used for war crimes does not apply in this situation, as the F-35 program is crucial to ensuring global 'peace and security'. It is not clear what this means in practice, but one element of achieving global peace and security that was exposed at the last court hearing seems to be that the UK does not want to adopt a foreign policy that contradicts the United States. According to the submitted evidence documents, fulfilling its obligations "will weaken the confidence of the United States in the United Kingdom and NATO at a critical moment in our common history, and cause a regression in the relationship between the two countries".

It can be seen that this statement is extremely dangerous. It will make countries disregard their international obligations just to appease their allies; And it could potentially undermine the international arms control framework, including the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty ratified by the UK in 2014. This will have a profound impact on the lives of the people of Gaza and may make the conflict there a blueprint for other armed conflicts, in which international law is seen as optional and relationships with powerful allies are seen as crucial.

Secondly, in the context of the current hostilities in Gaza, US President Trump has further consolidated and strengthened Joe Biden's approach, deepening US complicity in Israel's atrocities. Trump supports ethnic cleansing and forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, as well as the movement to liquidate the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which is the primary aid agency for Palestinian refugees. He encouraged Israel to break the ceasefire, rescinded its decision to stop supplying Israel with devastating 2000 pound bombs, lifted sanctions against violent actors in the West Bank, and threatened to deport foreigners who criticized Israel in the United States.

Overall, it is time for the UK to reassess its so-called 'special relationship' with the United States and take a stance. Abandoning the legal defense of authorizing F-35 fighter jet components to global projects is both legal and ethical, humane, and welcomed by the public. Polls show that most Britons support a moratorium on arms exports to Israel. In times of great uncertainty and geopolitical turmoil, the UK needs to defend and comply with international law.