High Court Rules UK Export of F‑35 Components to Israel Lawful Despite Humanitarian Concerns

London’s High Court today dismissed a legal challenge brought by Palestinian NGO Al‑Haq and UK-based Global Legal Action Network, alongside Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam. The claim centred on the UK government’s decision to exempt certain F‑35 fighter jet spare parts from an arms export suspension imposed in September 2024, arguing the components could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza  .

Judge Stephen Males and Justice Karen Steyn ruled that deciding whether the UK should withdraw from the multinational F‑35 programme was a political matter (“for the executive, not for the courts”)  .

Exported Components: What Was Exempted?

Although the UK suspended approximately 30 of 350 export licences covering helicopters, drones and military equipment, it retained several crucial F‑35 spare‑parts licences. Reportedly included in this exemption were components such as:

• Laser targeting systems
• Aerial refuelling probes
• Tyres
• Ejector seats  

These parts are not shipped directly to Israel but enter a global spare‑parts supply pool shared by partner countries. Israel, as a partner, can requisition parts from this pool for its own fleet  .

Government Justifications

The UK government acknowledged – even in court – that it had assessed a serious risk these parts could facilitate violations of humanitarian law. Nonetheless, officials argued that halting exports would severely disrupt the global F‑35 programme, undermine NATO security, impede UK‑US trust, harm Ukraine’s defence ability, and threaten wider international peace  .

As noted by Defence Secretary John Healey, withdrawing would “undermine US confidence in the UK” and precipitate “profound impact on international security”  .

Human Rights Groups Respond

Al‑Haq director Shawan Jabarin described today’s judgement as a “setback,” but underscored the progress made through raising awareness and public pressure  .

Human Rights Watch’s Yasmine Ahmed criticised the ruling, stating it provides “a green light for the UK to continue supplying lethal F‑35 components … even in the face of acts of genocide and other atrocities”  .

Wider Implications & What Comes Next

• Legal impact: The ruling affirms the principle of judicial deference in politically sensitive national security matters.
• Arms control policy: Campaigners warn this weakens the UK’s arms‑export regime and could dilute its obligations under international law  .
• Future legal avenues: Al‑Haq has indicated it will explore grounds for appeal ().
• International context: Compared to major suppliers like the US and Germany, the UK contributes a smaller share. Nonetheless, it is second only to the US in supplying F‑35 components (~15% of each jet)  .