Before you read this article, try hard to click on "Attention", which is both convenient for you to discuss and share, but can bring you a different sense of participation, thank you for your support!
Edited by: Admiral
The Netherlands said on Friday that despite a Supreme Court order allowing it to change its policy, it will continue to maintain a ban on exports of F-35 fighter parts to Israel.
Since the appeal court ordered the government to halt exports in February 2024, Israel has banned exports of jet aircraft parts used to fight Hamas in Gaza.
But earlier on Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the court exceeded its jurisdiction and said foreign policy should be formulated by the government rather than the judges.
The Supreme Court judge gave the government six weeks to review its export licensing policy, but decided to do so within hours.
The core of this matter is no longer whether the parts stored in American warehouses in the Netherlands should be shipped to Israel.
This is how the Netherlands finds its place between judicial independence, administrative sovereignty, ally responsibility and humanitarian stance.A small part has become a profound national self-positioning crisis.
Who's in charge? The judge or the minister?
The starting point of this tug-of-war was that three human rights organizations sued the government to court. Their reasons are straightforward: Fear that these parts will be used in the Gaza Strip, which may violate international law, makes the Netherlands a muddled "accomplice" in war crimes.
Initially, the Hague District Court did not support them. But things turned upside down in February, when the Hague Court of Appeal issued an order requiring the government to stop exports immediately.The judges 'logic was that there was a "clear risk" that the parts would be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law.
This judgment kicks the ball directly to the boundary of power between the government and the judicial system. Of course, the government refused to do it, and immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such important matters as foreign policy should be decided by the cabinet.
Eventually, Supreme Court Deputy Dean Martin Polak made a hammer in Friday’s ruling. He made it clear that the Court of Appeal “is beyond its scope of competence” to assess the risks of international humanitarian law and decide whether to issue a license is the responsibility of the government and the court can’t do so.This final ruling, in essence, marked a clear red line for the judiciary, and steadily returned the "wheelchair" of foreign policy to the executive department.
However, the Supreme Court also gave the government a task: Re-evaluate the export license within six weeks.During this period, the export ban, which they were legally denied, must remain in force.
A part of political life.
These American-made F-35 parts stored in Dutch warehouses are no longer purely industrial products. It has been thoroughly "politicized" and turned into a hot potato, which has forced the Dutch government, which is in a caretaker state, to walk a tightrope between various pressures.
On the one hand, it is a commitment to the allies of the United States. Government lawyers repeatedly argued in court that the parts were U.S. property and the Netherlands did not necessarily have the right to interfere with U.S. -led deliveries.Moreover, even if the Netherlands does not let it go, Israel can easily get it from elsewhere, and the actual meaning of the ban is little.The F-35 project itself is crucial for the safety of the Netherlands and its allies.
But on the other side, there is huge humanitarian pressure. So, when the government legally won the support of the Supreme Court, a dramatic scene occurred. They almost immediately announced that it was “unreasonable” to resume exports given the “catastrophic situation in the Gaza Strip.”
In the statement, the government also specifically stressed that a ceasefire must be reached as soon as possible, the hostages must be released and the suffering ended. This clearly shows that their decisions are deeply influenced by the current conflict situation and public opinion.Don't forget that the Netherlands will hold a national election on October 29, and any diplomatic move will become extremely sensitive.
Is the pace in Europe out of order?
Since the Hamas raids on 7 October last year, and Israel’s large-scale military operations, the whole of Europe has been at odds and even contradictory when it comes to arms sales to Israel.
Judicial challenges are present in many countries. Similar to the Netherlands, the London High Court in the UK also rejected legal claims by human rights groups in June to try to block the UK’s supply of F-35 parts, while related court cases are also underway in France and Belgium.
The actions of governments are even more varied. Some countries have chosen to take the initiative to cut. For example, Slovenia announced a total ban on arms trade with Israel in August. Spain also claimed that it stopped arms sales to Israel last October. Last year, the British government suspended some arms exports that may be used to violate international law.
Everyone makes decisions in the same context: this conflict has caused enormous casualties.According to Hamas data, more than 660,000 people have been killed or allegedly killed in Gaza, while Israel says its operation aims to destroy Hamas, rescue hostages, and has killed more than 22,000 militants. In this context, European countries have clearly failed to find a unified response.
conclusion
Looking back at the Dutch show, the government gained the power to formulate foreign policy in law, but in practice chose to act in accordance with the court’s previous rulings.
This seemingly contradictory end reveals precisely the most real difficulties of contemporary international relations.
A sovereign state’s discourse is no longer merely calibrated by its internal power structure, but must find its way through the intertwined network of complex international treaties, legal obligations and global public opinion.
The final decision of the Netherlands is nothing more than a temporary balance between the multiple forces of law, politics and morality.