Latest news with #internationalhumanitarianlaw
South China Morning Post
5 days ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
How America learned to embrace Israel's genocide as future of war
A recent article in The New Yorker literally turned my stomach. 'What's Legally Allowed in War,' the headline said. 'How US military lawyers see Israel's invasion of Gaza – and the public's reaction to it – as a dress rehearsal for a potential conflict with a foreign power like China.' Advertisement Lawyers working for the Pentagon now think anything is possible, everything is allowed. If America's military does it, it means it's legal. The author begins with an interview with a retired US Army senior adviser on what is known as international humanitarian law, or the law of armed conflict (LOAC), which will be the new legal doctrine for large-scale combat operations (LSCO) and is heavily influenced by the Israeli conduct of war in Gaza. In trips sponsored by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, the lawyer and several retired US three- and four-star generals were shown the rubble that is now Gaza - and were essentially told it was all Hamas' fault. They were shown surveillance videos of Hamas activities, so the destruction that followed 'was not the product of an indiscriminate assault and that the laws of war had been upheld'. Advertisement 'Hamas' use of civilian buildings transformed those sites into 'military objectives', the former US Army lawyer concluded,' the report said. 'The civilians killed were not targets but 'incidental deaths'.' A subsequent report by the US delegation concluded 'that the IDF's implementation of civilian-risk mitigation 'reflects a good-faith commitment' to comply with the laws of war, whereas Hamas acted as a pervasive and intentional violator of the law'.
Khaleej Times
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Khaleej Times
UAE condemns Israel's attack on Holy Family Church in Gaza
The UAE has condemned and denounced in the strongest terms the Israeli army's targeting of the Holy Family Church in the Gaza Strip, an attack that resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. Calling it a blatant violation of international humanitarian law, the UAE expressed deep concern over the ongoing attacks and Israeli military escalation, warning that such actions only worsen the already catastrophic humanitarian situation in the region. In an official statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Mofa) reaffirmed the UAE's firm stance against the targeting of civilians, religious sites, and civil institutions, stressing that their sanctity must be respected and preserved, and that they should never be drawn into the conflict. The Ministry also urged the international community to intensify efforts to support a genuine political process aimed at achieving lasting peace. It underscored the importance of working toward a two-state solution that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for an independent and sovereign state, in line with international resolutions.
Bloomberg
11-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Microsoft Investors Prod Company Over Work With Israeli Military
A group of Microsoft Corp. investors is pressuring the company to assess how effectively it identifies customers who misuse its artificial intelligence tools, a push that follows reports detailing the Israeli military's use of Microsoft software during its war in Gaza. The shareholder resolution, which could be voted on at the company's annual meeting in December, asks the board to commission a public report disclosing more on how Microsoft prevents its products from being used in ways that violate human rights or international humanitarian law.
The Guardian
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
UK's sale of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel is lawful, high court rules
Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza, was lawful, London's high court has ruled. The ruling after more than 20 months of litigation will be a relief to ministers who feared that if the court declared the UK sale of F-35 parts illegal, British involvement in the highly lucrative Lockheed Martin F-35 consortium would be put at risk. In a 72-page comprehensive ruling Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said they had rejected all the grounds of challenge to a Labour government decision in September to suspend 30 arms export licences to Israel but to continue to sell F-35 parts to Israel via a global supply pool. The government argued that disruption to the F-35 supply chain would weaken the west and Nato at an acutely sensitive moment. The UK provides about 16% of the parts for the F-35s, and the court was told in closed session that the Lockheed Martin global pool was not structured to permit the UK to insist its parts were withheld from Israel F-35s. The judges ruled that the 'acutely sensitive and political issue' was 'a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts'. The case had been brought by the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq and Global Legal Action Network (Glan), supported by Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and Amnesty International. The judges said: 'The issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK-manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of IHL [international humanitarian law] in the conflict in Gaza.' The court rejected all 13 grounds for complaint mounted by Al-Haq's lawyers, and in so doing moved to protect ministers from judicial review based on their international law obligations. Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) called the judgment cowardly, after the court determined that it had no clear jurisdiction to rule on UK compliance with international law obligations if the law was not incorporated into UK law. Despite the ruling, the case has revealed serious weaknesses of the UK arms export regime and the case ministers have mounted in parliament to justify F-35 sales. In parliament ministers have held that it is only for a competent international court, and not politicians, to assess the existence of a genocide. But in pleadings in court, lawyers revealed that in July 2024 the government had assessed there was no serious risk of a genocide occurring in Gaza, and claimed not to have seen evidence that women and children were deliberately targeted in Gaza. The case also revealed that in assessing whether the Israeli Defense Forces had acted disproportionately, one of the key tests of a breach of IHL, the government evidential requirements were set impossibly high. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion By September 2024, when Israel, according to the Hamas-controlled health ministry, had killed 40,000 Palestinians and launched over tens of thousands of airstrikes on Gaza, the government had examined just 413 of these individual incidents – and of those it found only one possible violation of international law. That possible breach was the World Central Kitchen attack on 1 April 2024 that killed seven foreign aid workers. This means the government had not found any possible breach of IHL in respect of any incident that killed exclusively Palestinians. Al-Haq argued in court that ministers should not have focused solely on the potential Israeli justifications for a specific bombings, but also looked at the overall pattern to gather a sense of proportionality. Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at Glan, said: 'The judges declined to review the defendant's genocide assessment on grounds that it is not an area suited to the court. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers.' Sara Husseini, of the British Palestinian Committee, said: 'Now the courts have kicked the issue back to the ministers, it is a matter for MPs and the electorate to hold the government to account.' Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch, said: 'Judicial deference to the executive in this case has left the Palestinians in Gaza without access to the protections of international law, despite the government and the court acknowledging that there is a serious risk that UK equipment might be used to facilitate or carry out atrocities against them. The atrocities we are witnessing in Gaza are precisely because governments don't think the rules should apply to them.'
Irish Times
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
UK court rejects case against lawfulness of Britain exporting fighter jet parts to Israel
Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel , despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza , was lawful, London's High Court ruled on Monday. Al-Haq, a group based in the Israeli-occupied West Bank , had taken legal action against Britain's department for business and trade over its decision to exempt F-35 parts when it suspended some arms export licences last year. The UK had assessed that Israel was not committed to complying with international humanitarian law in Israel's military campaign. But Britain did not suspend licences for F-35 components, which go into a pool of spare parts which Israel can use on its existing F-35 jets. READ MORE Britain said suspending those licences would disrupt a global programme that supplies parts for the aircraft, with a knock-on impact on international security. It said taking such action could 'undermine US confidence in the UK and Nato'. Al-Haq had argued at a hearing last month that the decision was unlawful as it was in breach of Britain's obligations under international law, including the Geneva Convention, but the High Court dismissed the group's challenge. Judges Stephen Males and Karen Steyn said the case was about whether the court could rule that Britain must withdraw from the international F-35 programme, which was 'a matter for the executive . . . not for the courts'. According to Gaza officials, Israel's bombardment has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians while displacing almost the whole population of more than two million and plunging the enclave into a humanitarian crisis. Israel launched its campaign in response to the October 2023 attack in which Hamas-led fighters killed 1,200 people and took 251 hostages. The court said Britain's business minister Jonathan Reynolds was 'faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue'. Al-Haq said it was disappointed with the ruling, but that its legal challenge had contributed to Britain's partial suspension of arms export licences in 2024. Jennine Walker, a lawyer at the Global Legal Action Network which supported Al-Haq's case, said outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London: 'We are currently analysing the judgment for grounds of appeal. 'This is a regrettable setback after such a long battle for Al-Haq and all the Palestinians who have been following the case. However, this is not the end.' Charity Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also criticised the ruling. A British government spokesperson said: 'This [ruling] shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.' – Reuters (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2025
