CAAT Statement: Court of Appeal refuses Al-Haq permission to appeal regarding arms licences to Israel

Read online

On 12th November the Court of Appeal refused Al-Haq/GLAN permission to appeal a High Court judgment from June dismissing their application for judicial review of the exemption, or “carve-out”, made by the Labour government to allow the UK to continue supplying F-35 combat aircraft components to Israel.

The appeal judgment describes the government as holding the position that whatever the risk of Israel failing to comply with IHL and other international law obligations, the reasons of “international peace and security” for the F-35 carve out would outweigh any such risk. The government can give no upper limit as to the crimes that Israel can commit with F-35 jets, and in fact has refused to do so when asked. 

In its previous ruling, the Court determined that it didn’t have the jurisdiction to rule on international law and that only the government is able to decide when it should, or should not, comply with international law. This is because, according to the judgment, international treaties are not incorporated into domestic law. These include the Genocide Convention, and the Arms Trade Treaty. 

Al-Haq challenged the government on the grounds that it was wrong for the Secretary of State to argue that the F-35 Carve-Out was consistent with the UK's international law obligations and the domestic Strategic Export Licensing Criteria (SELC). The appeal judgment reiterated the High Court ruling that these grounds of challenge were non-justiciable, that is, that the courts do not have the power to rule on them.

In his refusal Lord Justice Dingemas, said: “The conventions identified by the claimant did not automatically form part of, and had not been incorporated into, domestic law. The matters concern the conduct of international relations and national security which are the domain of the democratically accountable executive.”

Both the government and the Courts have failed Palestinians and the UK public in allowing the continued transfer of F-35 parts to Israel via the Global Supply Pool. However this comment from Justice Dingemas highlights that the content of these judgments are of critical concern to the public. The “democratically accountable executive”, the government, is accountable to us, the people. 

When the government reiterates, dozens if not hundreds of times, that it has one of the most ‘rigorous and robust’ arms control regimes in the world, the content of these judgments shows us exactly why this is not the case. 

Firstly the Secretary of State for Business and Trade stated in Court and to Parliament that they consider the F-35 Carve out consistent with the UK’s international obligations, including the Genocide Convention. Al-Haq noted that these obligations are affirmed in the UK’s domestic Strategic Arms Export Licensing Criteria (SELC), leading to the justiciable question of whether the government has complied with its own policy. 

However, in order to claim that none of the UK’s international obligations raised by Al-Haq were justiciable in a domestic Court, the government argued - and the Court accepted - that the framework of the SELC in its entirety has been cast aside, not just Criterion 2c) on the risk of serious violations of IHL, and so none of these international obligations were justiciable. 

To put it plainly, not only can the government throw out the domestic law and policy that gives effect to the UK’s arms controls at will, even for the most serious cases including genocide, but the Courts are happy to agree that the exisiting international legal obligations referenced in this domestic policy get thrown out with it. 

The government has the audacity to claim that the F-35 carve out is consistent with the UK’s international obligations, while arguing tooth and nail that it has departed from every piece of domestic legislation and policy which gives rise to these obligations.

Secondly the Court, for all its arguments that “international relations and national security are the domain of the democratically accountable executive”, is perfectly happy to wade into matters of politics when it suits it. 

The November appeal judgment reaffirmed the High Court's essentially political judgment: ”It was reasonable for the [government] to conclude that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended. The programme is highly integrated, and the principle of cooperation lies at its heart. It would not be possible for the UK to issue a unilateral instruction of this nature, nor would it be possible under the Memorandum of Understanding governing the programme.”

By the Court's reading, arms controls and domestic and international legal obligations are to be renegotiated with military partners every time an end-user of jointly produced arms exports violates international law. And should it be judged that this negotiation might offend the partners in question, it is not necessary to even attempt this negotiation, according to the government.

Of course, the critical issue here is that arms controls and the implementation of foundational international legal instruments - which protect the most vulnerable people in conflict, when so many of their human rights will have already been violated - are not optional. In attempting to justify an unforgivable position the government and the courts have contributed to the degradation of international law, which has been a key factor in the international community allowing, and in some case supporting, Israel’s genocide in Gaza. 

Finally, at the heart of this case, is not that there are eight partners to the F-35 programme, but that the lead partner is the US. 

The appeal judgment reiterated advice to Government from the Defence Secretary which concluded that:

“… it is not possible to suspend licensing F-35 components for use by Israel without wide impacts to the whole F-35 programme. Such a suspension of F-35 licensing leading to the consequent disruption for partner aircraft, even for a brief period, would have a profound impact on international peace and security. It would undermine US confidence in the UK [emphasis added] and NATO at a critical juncture in our collective history and set back relations.” 

Despite CAAT vehemently disagreeing with this position, it gives clarity to the UK government’s real concerns. The evidence submitted to Court gave almost no details as to how the government assessed this ‘profound impact on international peace and security’ but instead, as above, emphasised the Memorandum of Understanding between F-35 programme partners and the ‘impossibility’ of persuading partners. 

The reality is there is one partner, the US, that the UK and others will apparently go to any lengths to appease. The US has been the largest exporter of arms to Israel throughout the genocide, provided unending military and political support, and for almost a year has put forward plans for a reconstruction of Gaza that amount to mass ethnic cleansing, forced displacement and ongoing genocide. Since the "ceasefire" Israel has killed 245 Palestinians and injured over 600 more, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza, as well as continuing to obstruct the flow of aid. 

As if any more evidence was needed to illustrate the intentions of the US government, on 4th September 2025 US Secretary of State Marc Rubio, announced sanctions against Al-Haq, Al-Mezan, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) – the leading human rights organisations working on international criminal accountability for perpetrators of atrocity crimes in Palestine. Sanctions have been imposed under Executive Order 14203 on these organisations for “directly engag[ing] in efforts by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute Israeli nationals, without Israel’s consent”.

We live in world where victims, and those representing them, apparently need consent from the perpetrators of genocide to seek justice for the crimes they have been subjected to. For this search for justice and accountability, the staff of Al-Haq, Al-Mezan, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) and their colleagues, friends and families, have been on the receiving end of what can only be described as reprisals by the US. 

Al-Haq’s statement on the sanctions is here, and the outline of the immediate impacts here, which include: 

1. “All bank accounts were closed, crippling our operations, our ability to pay employee salaries, receive funding, and forcing us to divert our resources to address these attacks, taking away attention from our vital advocacy and accountability work.
2. Colleagues holding U.S. citizenship were forced to resign due to the risk of incurring severe criminal and civil penalties for continuing to work with us as sanctioned organisations.
3. Loss of funds, particularly from our U.S.-based donors.
4. U.S.-based partners may be forced to refrain from engaging in any joint legal and advocacy with us, ultimately restricting their freedom of speech.”

These sanctions have been levied against those doing powerful and meaningful work to challenge some of the most grievous injustices that the world faces. While we are disappointed with the result of the appeal, we do not doubt the impact this case and campaign has had in suspending some UK licences to Israel, and providing transparency on the actions of the UK government that would not have been achieved otherwise. 

We have never had more clarity on the degree to which the actions of the UK government are making us, the UK public, complicit in the most serious crimes including genocide, and that the UK’s arms exports are the means by which this happens.

We share our solidarity and thanks with Al-Haq and all our partners and supporters for being a light in dark times, and for doing the work to make visions of a just and peaceful future a reality. We will not give up.

ENDS