Abstract On 30 June 2025, the High Court refused a judicial review of UK arms export policy towards Israel. This article examines the government's claims in the case and the judges’ ruling, arguing that the law has an ambivalent capacity to serve justice. The government manipulated the pretence of commitment to international law in order to escape its obligations. The High Court ruling provides legal justification of state practice through deference to executive decision making, acceptance of the claim of non‐justiciability and an uncritical acceptance of purported risks to the wider arms export programme in spite of the immediate risks to Palestinians. The case also forced the state to defend its practice, revealed new detail about government decision making and the operation of the arms trade, publicised government decisions and behaviours and generated further protest and dissent from the British public, even as the government uses the law to suppress this.
Anna Stavrianakis (Wed,) studied this question.