Skip to main content

Is UK’s F-35 exemption from suspended Israel exports compatible with international law? IDC Chair writes to Government

26 June 2025

Inquiry: Humanitarian access and adherence to international law

The Chair of the International Development Committee has raised concerns that the UK’s exemption of F-35 components from suspended arms exports to Israel may be incompatible with international law.  

In a letter to the Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds published today, Committee Chair Sarah Champion questions whether the decision to exempt F-35 components is compatible with the UK’s legal obligations under several legal mechanisms. These include the Arms Trade Treaty, the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions, and the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts. 

In September, the Government suspended 30 arms export licences to Israel after concluding there was a “clear risk” that certain exports might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law. However, the Government continued to allow the export of components used in F-35 planes, which are transferred indirectly from the UK to Israel through a global programme. 

This decision is currently subject to judicial review, after Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq challenged the Government. A four-day trial took place at the High Court of Justice in May, but a judgment has not yet been issued. 

In a report published earlier this year, the International Development Committee said the Government could do much more to ensure that UK-manufactured weapons components did not fall into the hands of those who could use them in attacks on aid workers. It called for the Government to address the lack of a legal requirement for companies to stop exporting arms in this scenario. 

In the letter, the Chair writes that while the Government’s position appears to be that it was entitled to balance wider considerations of peace and security against the risk of serious violations of IHL, Article 7 of the Arms Trade Treaty requires states to perform a risk assessment of each of the factors listed in Article 7: “If there is the ‘potential’ for an ‘overriding’ risk of serious violations of IHL/IHRL, then the UK must not authorise the export.”

Reflecting on the risks of IHL violations by Israel, the Chair writes: “in circumstances where there are prolonged blockades of humanitarian aid including food, water and medicine, as well as evidence indicating the mistreatment of detainees by Israel, there are clearly risks of serious violations of the right to life, health, food security, and the prohibitions on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and torture. The clear risks of serious IHL and IHRL violations are undisputable.”

In the letter, the Chair asks several questions of the Government, including: 

  • In circumstances where the Government has determined that there is a “clear risk” of serious violations of IHL being committed by Israel, does the Government accept that there are “substantial” or “reasonable” grounds to believe that the F-35 components would be used in the commission of such crimes?  
  • What legal authority does the Government rely upon to support its position that a positive contribution to peace and security is to be balanced against a clear risk of the arms being used to commit serious violations of IHL/IHRL? 
  • Does the Government accept that it has knowledge that Israel is committing internationally wrongful acts? 
  • Does the Government accept that the export of F-35 components is aiding or assisting in the commission of these internationally wrongful acts?

The Chair asks the Government to respond to her letter by 11 July.

Further information

Image: House of Commons/Laurie Noble