THE ongoing Israel’s unjust Gaza war –which needs an immediate and permanent ceasefire after the currently announced ceasefire of Israel-Iran war— has sparked an intense debate over western countries’ role in supplying arms to Israel, raising concerns about complicity in Israel’s alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis and undermining international law.
Agreeably, the western illicit arms supply to Israel is allegedly responsible for fueling a cycle of violence and that has eroded the Middle East peace.
Fairly arguing all those countries — that are complicit in providing weapons and other military equipment to Tel Aviv — could be held responsible for its crimes in Gaza, according to international agreements and decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The record shows that the governments in the US, UK, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands and Germany—providing arms to Israel, not only face lawsuits from their respective national courts, but also face criticism from their local communities. The case brought by Nicaragua against Germany at the ICJ for its financial support to Israel indicates that third countries could also be held accountable for the crimes committed by Israel for supporting it with arms.
These States that their binding obligations under international humanitarian law, international human rights law, international criminal law and other international law, including the United Nations (UN) Charter, require that they put an immediate stop to such transfers and suspend all licenses for arms destined to Israel from their jurisdictions. States parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) have additional binding obligations under the treaty and so do States under relevant regional and national legal instruments on arms control.
Under Article 6(3) of the ATT, State Parties undertake not to authorize any transfer of conventional arms if they have knowledge at the time of authorization that arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which they are a Party. Under Articles 7 and 11, State Parties undertake not to authorize any export of conventional arms, munitions, parts and components that would, inter alia, undermine peace and security or be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
Pursuant to customary international law, as largely codified in the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts of 2001, a State that aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if: (a) that State does so with the knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act and (b) the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State (Article 16). As for the international humanitarian law(IHL), Common Article 1 to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 places a standing obligation on States to “respect and ensure respect”for the Conventions’ protections in all circumstances. In its authoritative commentary to Common Article 1, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) explains that the Article 1 obligation requires, inter alia, that States “refrain from transferring weapons if there is an expectation, based on facts or knowledge of past patterns, that the weapons would be used to violate the Conventions.”
Benjamin Netanyahu’s tyranny-based approach, propelled by military brinkmanship and unilateralism, appears to have challenged the global order and international legal stability. This is evident in his dismissal of international standing and interests and disregarding domestic dissent. His actions suggest a focus on responding to changing local and regional circumstances rather than adhering to established global structures. This stance potentially destabilizes the existing order by prioritizing national interests above international cooperation and adherence to global legal frameworks. The implications involve international legal challenges and a potential weakening of global norms. The western arms supply of substantial military aid, including advanced weaponry and technology to Israel has been a contentious issue, with many arguing that it has emboldened Israel’s, including the Palestinian occupied territories. Critics also point out that these arms transfers often end up being used against civilian populations exacerbating human suffering and undermining peace efforts.
The ongoing Gaza conflict has resulted in significant humanitarian crises, displacement, starvation and loss of life, with the western arms supply to Israel, playing a major role in the cycle of violence. Further, this support has enabled Israel to maintain a qualitative military edge over its Arabs neighbours and the Iranians. Notably western military hardware supply to Israel is diverse, with key partners, including the United States, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. While the US which remains Israel‘s key arms partner for decades, Germany has supplied submarines and other naval vessels, both France and the UK have been Israel’s arms partners.
And yet, unilateral US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan (June 21), a la unjust invasion of Iraq in 2003, raise potential concerns about western complicity and violations of international law are prominent. The US action, without a clear UN mandate or a direct Iranian attack, raises questions about the legality of such strikes and potential violations of the UN Charter, particularly Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Now with President’s intervention a ceasefire being reached between Tel Aviv and Tehran, it is imperative for President Trump to announce a long-awaited permanent ceasefire in Israel’s Gaza war.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also an expert in Conflict and Peace Studies (with special focus on Palestine, Kashmir), is member of European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), including the Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law.
(rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com)
