The United States is Israel’s largest supplier of arms. Now, a United Nations committee is investigating whether its transfers of bombs, fighter jets and other weapons violate international law. On May 12, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee) launched a formal inquiry into arms exports by both the United States and Canada, requesting detailed information from both governments about their transfers to Israel. This marks the first time a UN treaty body has formally investigated the United States’ potential responsibility for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in connection with Israel’s ongoing attacks on Gaza’s civilian population.

In letters addressed to Canada and the United States, the Committee stated that it was “deeply  concerned” that arms exports to Israel could be facilitating “crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide” in Gaza. It stated that it was “appalled by the indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks by Israel” that had resulted in mass killings, the displacement of more than 1.9 million  Palestinians, and “unprecedented levels of starvation in Gaza.” The Committee noted that, by providing military aid and assistance, the United States and Canada “could be enabling racial discrimination, racial segregation and apartheid by Israel” in breach of the United States’ and  Canada’s obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of  Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which the CERD Committee is tasked with monitoring. 

The CERD Committee’s inquiry follows on the heels of commentary by UN experts calling into question the complicity of third states in the crimes of genocide, apartheid, and other war crimes. Below, we analyze the significance of the Committee’s action. 

The CERD Committee’s Inquiry 

The Committee launched its inquiry in response to a complaint filed by a coalition of US-based non-governmental organizations (NGO) and law school clinics invoking the Committee’s Early Warning and Urgent Action (EWUA) procedure.  

In its letter to the US, the Committee cited information provided by the coalition and called on the United States to respond to allegations that it had fast-tracked the delivery to Israel of large quantities of weapons—including precision-guided munitions, small-diameter bombs, bunker busters, small arms, and other lethal aid—and that many of these weapons had been credibly implicated in serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law committed by Israel. The Committee noted that these allegations, if verified, would also violate the United States’ obligations under the ICERD.

Similarly, in its letter to Canada, the Committee referenced reports that Canada had temporarily halted new permits for military exports to Israel due to human rights concerns—but noted that Canadian arms transfers to Israel have continued indirectly through the US. Observing that the defense industries of the US and Canada are deeply intertwined, the Committee noted that Canada’s “special arrangements effectively exempt most military exports to the U.S. from permit requirements.” As such, Canada continues to indirectly supply many of the weapons that the US sends to Israel without conducting any human rights assessments of its own. The Committee cited reported plans for the US to supply Israel with 50,000 120mm high-explosive mortar cartridges sourced from a Canadian manufacturer. In addition, Canadian-made weapons components have also gone into key US-made military equipment—such as the F-35, F-15, and AH-64 Apache military assault aircraft, which have been used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in Gaza. 

The Committee warned that this “lack of adequate legal framework and other measures to ensure  that its military exports to the U.S. are not reexported to Israel and used to facilitate [serious  human rights violations]…would amount to breaches of the State party’s obligations under the ICERD.” 

Legal Significance of the Investigation 

These letters reflect the Committee’s increasing concern over international law violations by third states who supply arms to Israel. The Committee first addressed the current crisis in Gaza on October 23, 2023. It was not until December 2024, however, that it addressed third states’ military assistance to Israel, calling upon “all State parties to fully respect their international  obligations…including by ceasing any military assistance if there is a clear risk that such assistance could be used in violation of international law.” The letters to the US and Canada  mark the first time that the Committee has specifically called out individual states for their military exports to Israel. 

By launching its inquiry into the United States and Canada’s alleged role in facilitating the humanitarian crisis, the Committee has joined a growing number of human rights bodies examining not just Israel’s actions, but the responsibility of third states that have enabled its atrocities through arms transfers.

In the Concluding Observations from its periodic review of Canada in October 2024, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women raised concerns about “direct or indirect arms transfers by the State party or by private companies under its jurisdiction to third countries, including Israel, for use in conflict zones where they may facilitate violations of women’s and girls’ human rights as well as of international humanitarian law, notably in Gaza.” Similarly, in the Concluding Observations from its periodic review of Canada in March 2025, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities expressed concern that “the exemption of certain export permits for items, parts and components shipped to the United States of America to integrate into larger weapons systems, which are then exported to other countries, may facilitate the violation of the rights of persons with disabilities and jeopardize their access to humanitarian assistance.” In May 2024, a group of UN special procedures sent a letter to the US raising concerns over the human rights impacts of its arms exports to Israel. Likewise, the UN Human Rights Council and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have also issued general calls to states on arms exports to Israel.  

The Committee now becomes the third UN treaty body to call out Canada’s arms exports to Israel, and the first to investigate the United States on the issue. Cumulatively, these developments reflect an emerging recognition of the international human rights implications of arms exports. They affirm that states have an international legal responsibility to ensure that their arms exports do not end up in the hands of actors who use them to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law. This international standard applies equally to both direct and indirect arms exports through third countries, including those routed from Canada through the United States to Israel.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza is rapidly worsening, with evidence of mass starvation, forced displacement and confinement of civilians into shrinking areas they cannot escape, and daily attacks that kill dozens—including many children. The chaotic and disorganized release of minimal humanitarian aid, coordinated by the US and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, has been widely condemned by UN officials and human rights experts, who note that the distribution system has contributed to significant civilian deaths. Meanwhile, Gaza’s healthcare system is nearing total collapse.

Amid these escalating atrocities, it is imperative to hold all actors accountable—including those facilitating the assault on Gaza through arms exports. Under established international legal principles, states are responsible not only for human rights violations within their own territory, but also for extraterritorial human rights violations caused by their actions. In Georgia  v. Russian Federation, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) observed that the ICERD contains no general limitation on its territorial scope, affirming that Articles 2 and 5, in particular, “generally appear to apply…to the actions of a State party when it acts beyond its territory.” The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) similarly found that State parties “are  responsible for all their actions affecting human rights, regardless of whether the affected persons are in their territory.”

From arms exports to corporate accountability and climate change, human rights violations often involve multiple actors operating across borders, many of whom act in concert. To drive meaningful change in today’s world, the international human rights system must normalize such accountability. The CERD Committee’s investigation of the US and Canada signals its recognition that third states must be held accountable for enabling Israel’s blatant disregard for the rights of Palestinians. 

James Yap is the President of Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights. Sandra Babcock is a Clinical Professor at Cornell Law School and the Director of the law school’s International Human Rights Clinic. Nabila Khan is a Research Associate at the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law.