Q&A Lawyer’s letter warning of ‘complicity’ crimes

What is the gist of the legal argument for an arms embargo?

The letter says that ‘serious action’ is needed to ‘avoid UK complicity in grave breaches of international law, including potential violations of the Genocide Convention’. It points out that the International Court of Justice (ICJ )has ruled it is ‘plausible’ Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and that Britain is a signatory to the Genocide Convention. Britain therefore has a legal duty to act, it says.

Is the UK really in legal jeopardy?

The UK cannot wait until the ICJ decides whether or not a genocide is being committed, they add. ‘It must act now in accordance with its obligation to prevent genocide.’

What does the law say about UK arms sales?

The letter calls on the Government to suspend the provision of ‘weapons and weapons systems’ to Israel. It says the provision of ‘military assistance and material’ to Israel may render the UK ‘complicit in genocide’.

The lawyers say that continued arms exports to Israel are probably in breach of UK domestic law. The UK’S exports criteria requires the Government to refuse to licence military kit where there is ‘a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law’ it says.

What does the Government’s own internal legal advice say?

No one knows for sure because it has not been published but it is unlikely to differ from the advice contained in the experts’ letter.

Has the UK ever suspended arms sales to Israel before?

Yes. In July 2009, Britain revoked five export licences for weapons destined for Israel because of their use in Gaza during a threeweek conflict .

Later, during the 2014 war, a review into the UK’S exports to Israel identified 12 licences for military components which could be used on targets in Gaza. When the review was published, in August 2014, a ceasefire had been called. The Government said it would suspend the 12 licences ‘in the event of a resumption of significant hostilities’.

Surely Israel has a right to selfdefence?

Absolutely. But international law requires that any violence used in self-defence must be proportionate and remain within the rules of war.