About

Why we conducted this research

Shortly after Israel launched its offensive on Gaza in October 2023, the scale of atrocity crimes quickly eclipsed that of previous Israeli operations, with widespread bombardment levelling entire urban neighborhoods and civilian infrastructure. Civil society organizations, human rights advocates and Palestinian plaintiffs (in some cases) initiated litigation across multiple jurisdictions to halt transfers of arms, components, and dual-use technologies to Israel. Beyond seeking an immediate end to arms transfers, these lawsuits served as a critical test of whether international legal obligations prohibiting state complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are practically enforceable in domestic courts across EU countries. Put simply, if political leaders refused to stop supplying Israel’s military – could the courts do the job? 

As early as 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its first provisional measures order in South Africa v. Israel to call for the protection of civilians in Gaza because it found the risk of genocide to be plausible.^[1] Two months later, in March 2024, the ICJ explicitly recalled that “All Parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide must, forthwith, refrain from any action, and in particular any armed action or support thereof, which might prejudice the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide”.^[2] These orders place direct legal obligations on states and other actors to act to prevent genocide. Furthermore, the ICJ issued an Advisory Opinion in July 2024, determining that Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian lands has been illegal, adding that member states have a responsibility to deny any aid or recognition that would perpetuate it.^[3] In parallel to the ICJ’s state-level proceedings, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and (former) Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.^[4] 

Where governments failed to honor their international obligations through executive action, the question became whether domestic courts were capable of providing an effective remedy based on national, EU and international law. Litigants tested this question across Europe – cases to halt arms transfers to Israel were launched in the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Germany, Ireland, and Italy. In the UK too – although outside the scope of this research – a legal challenge brought by Al-Haq and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) pushed the government to voluntarily suspend around 30 of its roughly 350 arms export licences to Israel in September 2024, although the High Court refused to provide judicial review.

Across these countries, litigants have pursued claims through the administrative, civil and criminal courts and proceedings, depending on the appropriate judicial branch in which to bring the cases. Litigation has been costly, slow and emotionally exhausting. In a few cases, the claimants’ demands were met in part. In other cases, governments took steps to reduce or halt military support to Israel independently – or possibly under pressure – from domestic legal challenges. In the majority of cases, however, courts dismissed the litigants’ claims, sometimes on dubious reasoning. These outcomes deserve further scrutiny to better understand why EU states continue to fail to comply with their obligations under international law, including in a context where that failure has become a publicly visible form of de facto support for genocide. 

How to use this database

• The totality of the information provided in this database can be used to learn from existing litigation.
• To see how each country incorporates international law, visit the top-level country pages linked above. For each country we examine how national legal frameworks interpret and enforce international obligations regarding arms transfers. For Belgium, France, Germany, and Spain, a Litigation FAQ details the available legal remedies and procedures in those jurisdictions.
• Access individual court cases / litigation tracks via the case links inside each country page.
• Use the Useful Resources page as a toolbox of international law and relevant jurisprudence essential for ligitation on this issue.  
• Consult the map of cases for a quick overview of each case.

Scope of the Research

The project elaborates on 17 legal challenges:   

• The Netherlands: 2 cases
• Belgium: 5 cases
• Denmark: 2 cases
• Spain: 1 case
• France: 4 cases
• Italy: 1 case
• Germany: several cases grouped into 2 case studies

Many of the challenges consist of appeals, or, as in the German case, multiple related legal challenges.  Each case study contributes specific lessons to how the courts have responded to efforts at curbing arms transfers during an active genocide.

In each case, we explain the arguments and reasoning of the plaintiffs to understand which national statutes and laws they relied on, as well as international and EU law. In the cases where individual Palestinian plaintiffs joined the legal challenge, we highlight the way in which those individuals claimed to be affected by Israeli operations. We then look at the reasoning of the defense provided by state attorneys and finally at the court’s reasoning in delivering its decision. 

This work allows us to understand the tendencies of the courts in each jurisdiction and identify why certain litigation efforts worked better than others. The multi-country, multi-case study allows us to compare the strength of the various judiciaries in holding the executive branch accountable. We expect our findings to provide practical knowledge for civil society organizations involved in strategic and public interest litigation on the export of arms to destinations with a poor record of respect for international humanitarian law and international human rights law. We hope the research will aid future litigation, judicial reasoning, and advocacy campaigns in defense of the Palestinian people and other groups facing genocide and/or grave human rights violations. 

Research Methodology

The research is based on an analysis of plaintiffs’ court filings and the resulting judgments whenever these have been available. The research is further supplemented by interviews conducted with the civil society organizations bringing the legal challenges and, in some instances, with their legal advisors and attorneys. Interviews have aimed to clarify procedural history, to understand litigation strategy, to identify why certain forums were chosen, and to fill documentary gaps. 

Finally, a seminar bringing together the stakeholders in these cases provided an opportunity to extend the analysis. To ensure the validity of our findings, we have triangulated our findings with analyses provided by commentators in the legal field. 

Several methodological limitations should be noted. First, access to primary court records varies across jurisdictions, and several cases remain sub judice; in the absence of public filings, semi-structured interviews served as proxy sources. Second, differences in procedural systems, legal terminology, and publication practices made direct comparison imperfect. Finally, the analysis relies on translated materials, which may also be imperfect. 

Research Team

• PI: Dr. Claudia Saba (Blanquerna-URL)
• Dr. Margalida Capellà Roig (Universitat de les Illes Balears)
• Maha Abdallah (University of Antwerp)
• Dr. Carles Fernández-Torné (Blanquerna-URL)

The research has been supported through a grant from the International Catalan Institute for Peace.  

Notes

^[1] Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel) (Provisional Measures, Order of 26 January 2024) <https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf> 

^[2] Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel) (Provisional Measures, Order of 28 March 2024) <https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203847> 

^[3] Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Advisory Opinion) <https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf> 

^[4] International Criminal Court, ‘Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant’ (Press Release, 21 November 2024) <https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icc-arrest-warrant-netanyahu-21nov24/>