The United Kingdom’s claim to be a global champion of international humanitarian law is wearing thin. On 21 July 2025, the International Development Committee published the Government’s response to a letter from its chair, Sarah Champion MP, questioning why components for the F-35 fighter jet—parts jointly manufactured in Britain—had been exempted from the Government’s suspension of arms exports to Israel. Their verdict to the letter was damning. The response, Champion said, was “unsatisfactory,” “disappointing” and “fails to tell the whole story.”
The Government’s justification was familiar: strategic necessity. Secretary of State for Business and Trade Jonathan Reynolds insisted that “it was necessary to take this exceptional measure to exclude exports to the F-35 programme from the scope of the suspension because of the F-35 programme’s critical importance for NATO’s defence, and due to wider implications for international peace and security.”
He pointed to a recent High Court ruling, which upheld what he called “this Government’s thorough and lawful decision making on this matter.”
Foreign Secretary David Lammy offered a more emotive gloss the following day. “We are not also sending any direct parts to Israel for F-35s that could be used in Gaza,” he told Channel 4 News. “What we have not been able to do is withdraw from the global supply chain, for some parts, that might find their way into Gaza – because that would bring down F-35s all across the world and we’re not prepared to do that when there are conflicts in Europe and when we have to keep our people and other Europeans safe. But I am absolutely sure that we are not selling arms that could be used in Gaza.”
It was a striking defence, but one that critics say misses the point. As the Committee’s June report—Protection Not Permission—makes clear, legality is not the same as legitimacy. The report warns of a “hollowing out” of international humanitarian law (IHL) by governments, including Western ones, who simultaneously condemn abuses and facilitate them. The UK, the report insists, has a duty not merely to “respect” IHL but to “ensure that it is respected in all circumstances.”
This obligation becomes especially pressing when lives are at stake.
Since the war in Gaza began in October 2023, at least 261 aid workers have been killed and nearly 400 kidnapped or wounded. The Committee cited figures showing that, in December 2024 alone, 101 requests to deliver food to northern Gaza were made. Only three were approved. The report describes the “denial of access to humanitarian supplies on an alarming scale,” and criticises the UK’s reliance on “the same approaches to overcoming access challenges whilst expecting different results.” A “radically new approach,” it concluded, is needed.
And yet the F-35 exemption suggests continuity, not change. Champion pointed out the contradiction: “Alongside 25 other countries, the UK has issued a statement condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank but failed to provide concrete actions on how they will be held to account.”
The Committee offered several such actions.
It urged the Government to issue a formal response to the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—something it has failed to do nearly a year later.
It recommended interim suspension of arms licences where there are credible allegations of IHL violations, and called for legally binding due diligence obligations on British arms firms.
There is also a reputational cost. The report warned of the “increasing instrumentalism of humanitarian aid” and the “politicisation of humanitarian norms,” noting that inconsistent application of IHL threatens the “legitimacy of international law itself.” The UK’s unwillingness to apply equal scrutiny to allies and adversaries alike, it said, “damaged the UK’s reputation as a supporter of IHL.”
The Government likes to describe itself as a leader in humanitarian diplomacy. But exemptions like this suggest that, when tested, principles give way to production schedules.
Champion has signalled that further scrutiny is imminent. The credibility of Britain’s claim to moral authority in global affairs may depend on how it responds.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate