The UK High Court has rejected claims that the Government was in breach of international law by failing to end the extensive sale of UK arms to Saudi Arabia, which is fighting a war in Yemen.
The application for judicial review was brought by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), an organisation working to end the international arms trade. The issue was whether under the Export Control Act 2002 the Secretary of State for International Trade, who has responsibility for licensing the export of arms, is obliged by law to suspend existing export licences to Saudi Arabia and cease granting new licences, where there is "a clear risk that the arms might be used in the commission of a serious violation of International Humanitarian Law”.
The applicants contended that a decision to keep exporting arms, which were being used by Saudi-led Arab coalition in Yemen to destroy vital infrastructure, created a humanitarian catastrophe. A substantial body of evidence from NGOs and international bodies submitted by the applicants in support of their claim suggested that a ‘clear risk’ of ‘serious’ breaches of International Humanitarian Law existed, in particular indiscriminate airstrikes against civilians, such that arms sales to Saudi Arabia should be suspended or cancelled”. The defendant however maintained that the judgment required for assessing risk of human rights violations was prospective and predictive. Based on the knowledge available to it, the UK Government contended that there was no clear risk that the materials they supplied to Saudi Arabia might be used in the commission of a serious breach of International Humanitarian Law in the conflict in Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition launched its intervention in Yemen, against the Iran-aligned Houthi group which controls most of northern Yemen including the capital, Sanaa, in 2015.
The High Court heard both closed and open evidence over a period of three days in February of this year. In considering submissions from both parties, the Court was of the view that the British government had access to a wider and qualitatively more sophisticated range of information than that available to the claimant's sources. The Court found that the Secretary of State was rationally entitled to conclude, among others, that first Saudi Arabia has been, and remains, genuinely committed to compliance with International Humanitarian Law. Second, there was no 'real risk' that there might be 'serious violations' of International Humanitarian Law (in its various manifestations) such that UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia should be suspended or cancelled. In the end, Lord Justice Burnett, who heard the case with Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, decided in an open judgment that “the material decisions of the Secretary of State were lawful”, as the claimants had failed to establish that there was “a clear risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of International Humanitarian Law”. The claim was therefore dismissed.”
CAAT, which has expressed its disappointment over the High Court’s decision, intends to appeal the decision.
Click here for the judgement in R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for International Trade.