Recommendation 6

HM Government Not Addressed

37. We are clear, robust and consistent, including through our work in New York and Geneva and our work at multilateral institutions, in our support for IHL and the need to uphold IHL in Gaza. 38. The Government has been repeatedly clear that all parties, including Hamas and other non-state actors, must comply with their obligations under IHL in Gaza, and civilians must be protected. 39. We consistently urge the Israeli authorities to conduct swift and thorough internal investigations into incidents, including those involving aid workers and medical personnel and that these investigations result in meaningful accountability. 40. Through the measures we have taken including with our export licensing programme and our international actions, we are also satisfied that we are meeting our own obligations under international law. 3 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-sanctions-guidance-for- charities/financial-sanctions-guidance-for-charities-and-non-governmental- organisations-ngos The International Criminal Court (Conclusion 9, paragraph 35) At the international level, the International Criminal Court provides a forum for holding states and individuals, respectively, accountable for breaches of IHL. (Recommendation 5, paragraph 36) At a time when the legitimacy and impartiality of international courts is being questioned by some, the UK must stand firm in support of these important mechanisms for accountability to prevent impunity for serious violations of IHL. Government Response: Agree 41. The UK is fully committed to international law and respects the independence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). 42. The ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting individuals charged with the most serious crimes of international concern, holding those responsible to account and achieving justice for victims. The UK stands firm in its full support of the Court, which must be permitted to exercise its jurisdiction in line with the Rome Statute, investigate allegations of the international crimes that fall within its remit, and follow legal process. 43. Through its presence in key multilateral fora, the UK reinforces our support for the ICC. At negotiations for the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Safety and Security of Humanitarian Personnel in 2024, the UK reaffirmed the importance of the ICC for the international legal order, and called upon all States which have not yet done so to consider becoming parties to the Rome Statute. Diplomatic attention (Conclusion 10, paragraph 38) We welcome the times that the Government has made a stand on the likely breaches of IHL that have reduced access of populations to aid and/or have failed to protect those delivering aid. We also welcome the more general calls for the protection of aid workers. However, the lack of consistency across conflict types and geographies, arguably depending on the participants is startling, greater care needs to be taken to ensure that the UK’s actions and rhetoric around suspected breaches of IHL cannot be construed as being anything other than even handed—protecting allies at the expense of unconditional support for IHL is unacceptable. Such actions would set a poor example to other states and risk undermining the universality of law designed to protect us all. (Recommendation 6, paragraph 39) As part of the UK’s leadership role, the Government must be ready to call out actions not only when a blatant breach of IHL has been ruled on by a court, but when the spirit of IHL is being eroded. This condemnation needs to extend to where an overly permissive interpretation of IHL has been taken and must happen in equal measure regardless of the offending party’s diplomatic relationship to the UK. Failure to do so undermines a system designed to keep all civilians safe and to impose limits on the horrors of war. Government Response: Partially agree 44. The UK consistently calls on all parties to conflicts, including non-state armed groups, to comply with their obligations under IHL and observe robust standards. In so doing it does not differentiate between conflicts or between parties. 45. The Government cannot provide a running commentary on possible breaches of IHL in situations of conflict. Determining whether violations of IHL have occurred in the conduct of hostilities, for example, depends upon detailed knowledge of the facts of the specific military operation, including the precise nature of the target, the methods used to attack, the attacking party’s knowledge at the time and the anticipated military advantage in launching that attack. This is information to which the FCDO does not readily have access. 46. Harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure is a tragic aspect of armed conflict, but does not in itself mean that IHL has been violated or that war crimes have been committed, particularly in circumstances where parties to a conflict are embe