The Dutch Supreme Court is hearing a case that could set a powerful precedent across Europe, testing the boundaries between judicial power and government authority in foreign affairs. The government is fighting to overturn a court-ordered ban on the transit of F-35 parts to Israel, arguing that judges should not be the arbiters of the nation’s international policy.
This landmark case was brought by activists who believe the Netherlands is violating its international obligations by facilitating the supply of military hardware to Israel for its war in Gaza. They argue that Dutch law requires the government to block exports when there is a clear risk of them being used to commit war crimes.
The legal proceedings have exposed a deep rift within the Dutch system. After an initial court sided with the government, an appeals court took the opposite view, imposing a ban and stating that legal obligations to prevent war crimes trumped political considerations. This direct challenge to the government’s autonomy in foreign relations is now at the heart of the Supreme Court appeal.
The government has expressed concern that allowing the ban to stand would empower courts to intervene in sensitive diplomatic and security matters. Furthermore, it claims the ban is impractical, given that the parts are American-owned and the U.S. could reroute them. A non-binding opinion from a Supreme Court legal advisor has already suggested the government’s appeal should be rejected, adding another layer of complexity to the case.
The ruling comes as the war, initiated by Hamas’s October 7 attack, continues to exact a heavy toll, with tens of thousands of Palestinians killed. The Dutch case is emblematic of a wider European reckoning, with courts in France and Belgium also hearing cases about weapons trade with Israel, and countries like Spain and the UK already suspending some exports.