“A Clear Risk”: Dissecting the Legal Reasoning Behind the Dutch F-35 Ban

The phrase “a clear risk” is the legal cornerstone of the entire Dutch F-35 parts controversy, and it’s what the government is desperately trying to dismantle in its Supreme Court appeal. This specific legal finding by a lower court is what triggered the ban on exports to Israel.
In its pivotal February 2024 ruling, the appeals court in The Hague didn’t just issue an opinion; it made a factual determination. The judges concluded that there was “a clear risk that the F-35 parts are used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law.” This finding elevated the issue from a political debate to a matter of established legal jeopardy.
This reasoning is based on international arms trade regulations and treaties, which often require states to block arms transfers if there is an overriding risk they will be used to commit atrocities. The Dutch court applied this principle directly to the situation in Gaza, looking at the high number of civilian casualties and the widespread destruction.
The human rights groups that brought the case successfully argued that this “clear risk” was evident and that the government could not legally ignore it. They effectively turned the abstract language of international treaties into a concrete legal barrier for the shipments.
The government’s appeal to the Supreme Court must now attack this core finding. It has to convince the highest judges either that the risk was not “clear” or that the appeals court had no right to make such a determination in the first place, arguing it’s a political assessment. The entire case hangs on the interpretation of these three crucial words.