The Dutch State has wide discretion when implementing ICJ Advisory Opinions
Contributed to thinc. By Robbert van de Bovenkamp
Dutch Court ruling against Al Haq: the Dutch State has wide discretion when implementing ICJ Advisory Opinions
On 6th November 2025, the Dutch Court in the Hague ruled in a case that was brought before it by the pro-Palestinian group ‘Al Haq’. Al Haq, together with some other organisations, started a procedure against the Dutch State because they find that the State needs to take stronger measures against Israel. In their view, Israel is, by its actions in Gaza, guilty of genocide and other human rights violations. And according to Al Haq, the Dutch State needs to do more to prevent this. The Dutch Court rejected these claims and ruled that – in principle – it is not up to the Court to prescribe to the Dutch State which measures need to be taken.
The ruling of the Court was divided into three subjects, namely: (i) the export of military goods that have a dual use in Israel; (ii) the export of dogs to Israel; and (iii) the trade relations between (some) Dutch companies and the so-called “illegal Israeli settlements”.
Under (i) Al Haq demanded the immediate termination of all active licenses for the export of military goods to Israel. However – in the Court’s view – such a general call for the immediate termination of all active licences is against the legal system that is applicable to the export of these goods. The Court also did not see any reason to terminate the active licenses, since these licenses had been granted after assessing that the goods in question would be used for defensive purposes only. Consequently, it was not clear for the Court that these goods in themselves created a risk for grave human rights violations.
Secondly, the Court dismissed Al Haq’s demand that the State cease the export of dogs to Israel or take effective measures to inspect the export of dogs or ban this activity. The Court rejected these demands on the basis that there exists no legal framework that regulates the export of dogs, and that there is no basis in law for taking measures about inspection of the export of dogs (to Israel).
Thirdly, Al Haq demanded the adoption of effective measures – by the Dutch State – to stop trade relations between Dutch companies and the ‘illegal Israeli settlements’, and to test the current trade relations considering the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 19th July 2024. The Court dismissed these claims. In its reasoning the Court firstly stated that there is no international or national law that forbids companies to do business with ‘illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.’ It is up to states themselves to decide what steps they take to implement Advisory Opinions by the International Court of Justice. The Dutch Court is of the view that the Advisory Opinion itself does not lay out what steps need to be taken. Rather, what the Opinion entails is a best-efforts obligation for states, according to the Dutch Court. Moreover, the Court ruled that the Dutch State has a broad scope of discretion in determining its policy, and that it is up to the Court to exercise great restraint in relation to the State’s policy.
In conclusion: the Dutch Court has dismissed all the claims by Al Haq, thereby affirming the legitimacy of current practice of the Dutch State in relation to trade relations with Israel and ruling that no additional measures need to be taken. In particular, the Court issues a caution not to interfere further with the practices of the Dutch State, leaving a broad freedom to the State to consider its own policy and measures.
Link to ruling: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:2290, Gerechtshof Den Haag, 200.351.091/01
