The UK government is facing a High Court challenge over its continued export of fighter jet components used by "Israel" in its war on Gaza, in a legal case brought by Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organization. The case, reported by the Financial Times, targets the Department for Business and Trade and raises critical questions about the UK’s obligations under international law.

At the centre of the legal dispute is the UK’s role in supplying parts for the US-made F-35 Lightning II fighter jet, which "Israel" has deployed extensively in its aggression on Gaza. While some arms export licences were suspended in 2024 amid concerns over potential breaches of international humanitarian law, F-35 jet components were not included, as they are shipped to the United States and then routed to "Israel" through the broader international F-35 programme.

The UK government, under Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, has defended the continued export of F-35 parts. Sir James Eadie KC, leading the government’s legal team, argued that the decision was “lawful and justified,” citing the importance of the F-35 programme to NATO and allied security interests.

Court documents submitted by the Department for Business and Trade warn of the “gravity of the risks to the F-35 programme, and to international peace and security if the F-35 programme were to be compromised.” The government claims halting these exports would jeopardize national defense partnerships and broader strategic objectives.

Legal dispute over the UK’s international humanitarian obligations

Represented by Phillippa Kaufmann KC and Raza Husain KC, Al-Haq contends that the UK is failing its duty under international law by enabling a party accused of committing war crimes and potential genocide. “The government continues to permit the export of parts for F-35 fighter jets responsible for significant devastation in Gaza,” the group stated in court filings.

Central to the case is whether the UK must act on the “serious risk” of genocide or only when there is “actual knowledge” of violations. The government claims that only the latter standard applies, noting that internal assessments warning of a "clear risk" do not meet the legal threshold. The claimants dispute this, insisting that preventive obligations under international law are triggered by serious risk alone.

Al-Haq’s legal team further argues that the indirect nature of the exports, via the United States, does not reduce the UK's responsibility. “The fact that those parts are now being transferred indirectly to Israel via the United States of America, rather than provided directly to Israel, does not minimise the severity of their impact on the ground in Gaza,” their filing reads.

The case also highlights the UK’s obligation to “respect and ensure respect” for the Geneva Conventions, regardless of whether exports are direct or part of a multinational programme.

Judicial review set to begin

The judicial review is scheduled to begin on Tuesday and is expected to draw significant public and political attention as the UK’s arms export policy to "Israel" comes under renewed scrutiny.

A government spokesperson, while declining to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings, told the Financial Times that the UK remained “fully committed to upholding our responsibilities under domestic and international law.”

Read more: The government has been lying: UK caught in 'Israel' arms scandal