Two High Court justices in London have delivered a verdict affirming the legality of the UK's ongoing export of specific fighter jet components to Israel. This decision, encapsulated in a detailed 72-page judgment, addresses a contentious issue that intertwines international law, military ethics, and global diplomatic relationships.

Justices Males and Steyn reviewed the Secretary of State for Business and Trade's decision to continue exporting F-35 fighter jet parts, despite suspensions on other military-related exports. This particular carve-out was defended on the grounds that halting these exports could jeopardize the multinational Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, which is critical for “international peace and security.”

The challenge to this policy was spearheaded by Al-Haq, a Palestinian NGO focused on human rights, supported by interventions from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The complainants argued that this exemption could lead the UK to contravene its obligations under several international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions and the Arms Trade Treaty.

The court acknowledged the complexity of the issue, noting the difficulty in isolating the exports for use solely by Israel without impacting the broader JSF Program. The justices emphasized that their decision was not about endorsing UK arms supplies to Israel but maintaining their role in the JSF Program without broader disruptions.

In their ruling, the justices also recognized the potential for these components to be used in ways that might violate international humanitarian law (IHL) in the ongoing conflict in Gaza. However, they declared that the possibility of misuse alone does not justify judicial intervention in what they deemed an "acutely sensitive and political issue." Such matters, they argued, should be addressed by the executive branch, which is accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate.

This ruling underscores the intricate balance between national legal obligations and international diplomatic and security commitments. The decision has far-reaching implications, not only for the UK's role in global military alliances but also for the ethical dimensions of international trade and warfare. The court's stance sets a precedent for how similar cases might be navigated in the future, highlighting the ongoing debate over the intersection of law, politics, and human rights on the global stage.