Several pro-Palestinian groups reacted on Monday to a Brussels court's ruling regarding Belgium's responses to the war in Gaza, calling it "historic in international law".
On 16 March, the Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that pro-Palestinian NGOs and several Palestinian victims who are suing the Federal Government for its inaction against Israel may ask the judge presiding over the summary proceedings to order the Belgian Government to take measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the violation of the Genocide Convention in the Gaza Strip.
Droit pour Gaza collective, the Belgian-Palestinian Association (ABP), the National Coordination for Action for Peace and Democracy (CNAPD), and SOS Gaza released a statement on Monday about the ruling.
"To our knowledge, this is the first time a court has declared itself competent to review, at the request of victims and NGOs, whether Belgium is fulfilling its obligations under international law to take all reasonable measures within its power to prevent and put an end to violations of international law by a third state and to prevent genocide," the four organisations stated jointly on Monday.
Three main takeaways from the ruling
The organisations highlighted three particular aspects of the court's decision in their written statement.
First, the preliminary relief chamber of the Brussels Court of Appeal declared itself competent to examine whether Belgium acted in accordance with its obligations under international law in the face of a serious risk of genocide and grave violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Second, it recognised the Belgian state’s fault, "noting that it had not done everything reasonably within its power at the appropriate time to prevent and stop Israel’s crimes," the statement said.
The ruling stipulates that Belgium has been obligated to take measures since 26 January 2024, the date on which the International Court of Justice found that there was a "serious risk" of the commission of the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious violations of the Geneva Conventions in the Gaza Strip after 7 October 2023.
However, the Federal Government waited until 18 January 2026 to adopt a royal decree prohibiting flights over national airspace and technical stopovers for military equipment bound for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory.
"The Belgian state therefore did not immediately do what was within its power to prevent the transfer of arms and military equipment to Israel," the four groups noted.
Having declared itself competent, the Brussels Court of Appeal was thus able to partially overturn the first-instance order, specifically the portion regarding the closure of Belgian airspace to aircraft transporting weapons, military equipment, and dual-use goods to Israel. The first-instance order had rejected all of the plaintiffs’ claims in this regard.
Since the court nevertheless noted the existence of the royal decree on the transit of arms since the filing of the appeal on 27 October, it ordered the reopening of proceedings regarding the transit of dual-use goods only.
The plaintiffs further highlighted that the court found that the Belgian government had not sufficiently explained what it had done, in consultation with the regions, to prevent the transfer of goods that can be used for military purposes to Israel or the Palestinian territories.
A scheduling hearing is set for 30 March for this part of the proceedings, before the same judges hearing the preliminary injunction.
'Historic in international law'
The Droit pour Gaza collective, the ABP, the CNAPD, and SOS Gaza hailed the decision on Monday as "historic in international law," establishing "the possibility for a national judge to hold the state liable in the event of a breach of its obligations under international law to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and grave violations of the Geneva Conventions."
In their appeal, the four pro-Palestinian NGOs had also asked the court to order an end to trade with the illegal settlements in Palestine and to order the denunciation or suspension of the free trade agreement between the European Union and Israel.
The court ruled that these two requests were unfounded, citing the separation of powers and the state’s discretionary authority. "We question the reasoning behind this last part of the decision," commented the four pro-Palestinian organisations.
