The precise nature of the Dutch government’s responsibility in the supply of F-35 parts to Israel is the central question in a case awaiting a final ruling from the Supreme Court. The government is appealing a ban that holds it accountable for the transfer of U.S.-owned parts from its territory.
The lawsuit was brought by human rights groups who reject the government’s claim that it is merely a passive host for a U.S. warehouse. They argue that by allowing the shipments, the government is actively facilitating them and is therefore legally responsible for their end use.
This view was upheld by an appeals court in February 2024, which found that the government had a duty to intervene and halt the exports due to the risk of their use in war crimes. The government’s appeal is a defense of its more limited view of its own responsibility.
The government maintains that the ultimate responsibility lies with the United States, the owner of the parts. It argues that a Dutch court cannot and should not attempt to regulate the actions of an ally operating from a facility on Dutch soil under a multinational agreement.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this issue of state responsibility will have significant implications. The war in Gaza has highlighted the complex web of international military cooperation, and the Dutch ruling will help to clarify the legal obligations of states that are part of that web.