Select committee: International Development Committee

Conclusion 17

5th Report - Protection not permission: The UK’s role in upholding international humanitarian law and supporting the safe delivery of humanitarian aid Published 12 Jun 2025 Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

International Development Committee Humanitarian access and adherence to international humanitarian law All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

Conclusion (the committee's words)

The FCDO needs to be led by the law without fear or favour. In July 2024, the International Courts of Justice handed down its advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This advisory opinion sets out various obligations in respect of third states, including the obligation to ensure Israel complies with IHL. It is unacceptable that the Government has failed to issue a formal response nearly a year after the ruling was given. (Conclusion, Paragraph 40)

From: International Development Committee, 5th Report - Protection not permission: The UK’s role in upholding international humanitarian law and supporting the safe delivery of humanitarian aid (HC 526), 12 June 2025

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 5 September 2025 (deadline 12 August 2025).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government states that it "remains steadfast in its commitment to upholding international humanitarian law", agrees with many recommendations, partially agrees with others, and disagrees with the proposals on universal jurisdiction and binding due diligence for arms exporters.

On military training, the government agrees that mil-mil training on IHL "is an effective approach to promoting compliance", and describes existing training for foreign forces.
On sanctions, it is "committed to introducing a tailored humanitarian exemption" across UK autonomous sanctions "when parliamentary time allows".
It disagrees with amending the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to provide for universal jurisdiction, stating: "We do not believe that legislative change is required at this time."
It disagrees with new legislation placing additional requirements on arms exporters, citing a "robust assessment process" under the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error