The principles of international humanitarian law are effectively on trial in the Dutch Supreme Court, which is set to rule on a ban on exporting F-35 parts to Israel. The case will determine how these laws are applied by national courts in the context of an ongoing conflict.
The lawsuit was filed by three human rights groups that based their entire case on the argument that Dutch and international law require the state to prevent its complicity in war crimes. They contend that the evidence from the Gaza war makes a ban on the F-35 parts legally mandatory.
This argument was affirmed by an appeals court in February 2024, which ruled that the government’s legal obligations under humanitarian law trumped its political and diplomatic considerations. The government’s appeal to the Supreme Court challenges this hierarchy of principles.
The government’s position is that the application of humanitarian law in foreign policy is a complex matter for the executive to decide, not a simple legal formula for the courts to apply. It also argues that a ban would be a futile gesture.
The Supreme Court’s decision will be a landmark interpretation of international humanitarian law. It comes as the war, which began on October 7, continues to cause immense suffering, making the question of legal accountability for all parties more urgent than ever.