The UK finds itself at a crossroads between its international legal obligations and diplomatic relationships as pressure mounts from the country’s legal establishment to take decisive action against perceived violations of international law. The latest intervention comes from more than 800 lawyers, academics and former judges who have called on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to impose sanctions on Israel and consider suspending it from the UN over its conduct in Gaza.
The unprecedented letter represents the most significant collective intervention by Britain’s legal establishment on a foreign policy matter in recent memory. Among the signatories are Lord Sumption and Lord Wilson, both former Supreme Court justices, alongside Anthony Hooper, former Lord Justice of Appeal, and Alan Moses, former Lord Justice of Appeal.
Professional Legal Pressure Intensifies
No ads. No tracking.
We don’t run ads or share your data. If you value independent content and real privacy, support us by sharing.
Read More
The legal community’s intervention comes as the UK’s sanctions framework undergoes significant strengthening. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) received a substantial funding boost of £50 million in March 2024 and has been taking an increasingly proactive approach to enforcement. Since February 2022, OFSI has investigated and closed 388 cases relating to possible breaches of Russia sanctions alone.
‘It is an exercise in futility for a government to say it upholds the rule of law, if it then does nothing to demonstrate it,’ said Sir Alan Moses in a statement accompanying the letter. The former appeals court judge’s words capture the frustration felt within legal circles about what they perceive as a disconnect between the UK’s stated commitment to international law and its practical enforcement.
The letter argues that ‘genocide is being perpetrated in Gaza or, at a minimum, there is a serious risk of genocide occurring’, citing recent comments by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich who expressed Israel’s intention to ‘take control of all the territory of the [Gaza] Strip’ and ‘conquer, cleanse and stay – until Hamas is destroyed’.
International Court Obligations
The intervention comes as the UK faces mounting pressure to clarify its position on enforcing International Criminal Court arrest warrants . Last year, the Labour government reversed the previous Conservative administration’s opposition to ICC arrest warrant applications for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
The decision to drop the jurisdictional challenge marked a significant policy shift. The ICC has issued warrants for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, and the UK, as an ICC member state, would be obligated to execute any arrest warrants should the individuals enter British territory.
Professor Conor Gearty of the London School of Economics, another signatory, warned of broader implications: ‘These lawyers know what that would look like – and because they do, they are desperate to avoid it,’ referring to the potential collapse of international legal frameworks. ‘Imagine a world without rules: anarchy loosed upon the world.’
Trade and Diplomatic Consequences
The legal pressure coincides with existing trade tensions. The UK suspended negotiations of a new trade deal with Israel last week, though officials stressed this was due to capacity constraints rather than political considerations. The lawyers’ letter calls for a more comprehensive review of trade ties, including sanctions on government ministers and suspension of the 2030 roadmap for UK-Israel bilateral relations.
The intervention reflects broader international pressure. Leaders from the UK, France and Canada recently issued a joint statement describing the suffering in Gaza as ‘intolerable’ and indicating their readiness to take ‘concrete actions’. Germany’s Chancellor has similarly warned that civilian harm in Gaza can ‘no longer be justified’ as part of an anti-terror campaign.
Enforcement Mechanisms and Business Impact
Should the government heed the lawyers’ calls, the enforcement would likely fall to OFSI, which has been expanding its capabilities and cooperation with international partners. In January 2025, OFSI signed a memorandum of understanding with the US Office of Foreign Assets Control, demonstrating closer transatlantic coordination on sanctions implementation.
The UK’s sanctions strategy , published in February 2024, signals strong intentions to target circumvention attempts, particularly trade through third-party countries. For businesses, this creates additional compliance complexity as firms must navigate an increasingly complex web of international sanctions regimes.
Financial institutions face particular scrutiny. The Financial Conduct Authority has identified strengthening supervision of regulated firms’ sanctions systems and controls as a key priority for 2024-25, with particular focus on detecting evasion through intermediary jurisdictions including the UAE, Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands and Cyprus.
The surge in legal services demand from international investment also reflects how global businesses increasingly require expert guidance on navigating complex regulatory frameworks.
Legal Precedent and Future Implications
The scale of professional legal intervention is unprecedented in recent British history. Previous open letters from UK lawyers have focused on more technical legal matters, but this intervention directly challenges government foreign policy decisions on international law grounds.
The letter’s emphasis on ‘fundamental international legal obligations’ reflects growing concern within the legal establishment about the UK’s consistency in upholding international law. This follows earlier criticism over arms exports to Israel, with many of the same legal figures warning in April 2024 that continuing sales risked violating international law.
The intervention creates a significant test case for how the UK balances diplomatic relationships with legal obligations. The government’s response will likely set precedent for future cases where international court decisions conflict with bilateral relationships, particularly as international funding for peace efforts continues to evolve.
For UK businesses operating internationally, the outcome will signal the government’s approach to international law enforcement and could influence future sanctions policy. As enforcement activity ramps up globally, the legal establishment’s intervention highlights the growing intersection between international law, foreign policy and commercial considerations.
The lawyers concluded their intervention with a stark warning about the stakes involved: ‘We, in the UK, cannot expect peace unless we fulfil our obligations under international law.’ Whether the government acts on their recommendations will demonstrate the extent to which professional legal opinion influences UK foreign policy in an increasingly complex international environment.
