On June 30, 2025, the High Court of Justice’s King’s Bench Division ruled [3] that the UK’s “F-35 Carve Out” permitting continued export of F-35 fighter jet components through the multinational Joint Strike Fighter Program is lawful.

In a judgment by Justices Males and Steyn, the court refused permission for judicial review of the September 2, 2024 decision [4] by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. The Secretary of State suspended licenses authorizing the export of items that might be used in carrying out or facilitating Israeli military operations in Gaza, explicitly because the Government determined that Israel was not committed to compliance with international humanitarian law and there was therefore a clear risk such items might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL. However, the Secretary of State excluded from this suspension licenses for F-35 components that could not be identified as destined for Israel.

The case was brought by Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organization, with intervention [5] by Oxfam, Amnesty International UK, and Human Rights Watch. Al-Haq argued inter alia that the F-35 exemption violated the UK’s obligations under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, Articles 6 and 7 of the Arms Trade Treaty, Article I of the Genocide Convention, and rules of customary international law.

The court held that these international law issues were not justiciable in domestic courts without sufficient “domestic foothold,” as the relevant treaties remain unincorporated into UK law. The judges emphasized that the Secretary of State’s decision involved “matters of defence, international peace, national security and the conduct of foreign relations” that are constitutionally reserved to the democratically accountable executive.

The court emphasized that the Joint Strike Fighter Program, established by the US Department of Defense as “a design and development initiative…for use by multiple branches of the US military and its NATO and other allies,” is structured such that “it is not currently possible to suspend licensing F-35 components for use by Israel without having an impact on the entire F-35 Programme.” The judges clarified that continued participation in the JSF Program does not mean “the UK continue to supply F-35 components to Israel,” noting this case has never “been about whether the UK should supply arms or other military equipment to Israel.” Rather, the decision concerns whether “the UK would not cease to participate in the F-35 Programme.”

The High Court acknowledged that some UK-manufactured components may reach Israel and “may be used in the commission of a serious violation of IHL in the conflict in Gaza,” but held that this mere “prospect” was insufficient to require judicial intervention. The court concluded that such “acutely sensitive and political” decisions are “a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.”