Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026 Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

Lord Gold Excerpts
Wednesday 4th November 2026

(2 days, 12 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gold Portrait Lord Gold (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, the new sanctions purport to be global, but in reality they apply only to Israel. As my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out, there have been no designations over Northern Cyprus, which has been occupied by Turkey since 1974. The Xinjiang settler corporation in China is unsanctioned. Ministers have not said that the powers will be used against Hamas for diverting aid in Gaza or the Iran-backed Houthis, who are detaining UN aid workers.

Failure to take any action over Cyprus is particularly heinous. As guarantor under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, the UK has a particular responsibility. The UN Security Council declared the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus “legally invalid”, the Council of Europe has condemned the “colonisation” by Turkish settlers, and the European Court of Human Rights has found that Turkey violated the property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots. Indeed, homes continue to be built and sold on their land, including to British buyers, but no sanctions have been imposed. Yet the Government claim that the sanctions regime is global. If so, why has no action been taken in these other cases?

If the Government’s view is that settlement activity in occupied territory constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law, presumably that view rests on Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies equally to every alleged occupying power. The Government speak out loudly against antisemitism, but singling out the one Jewish state for sanctions raises serious doubts as to the sincerity of such a claim. Does the Minister accept that a decision not to apply the regime to comparable conduct elsewhere could be open to judicial review if it rests on a different legal test? Will the Government undertake to publish the criteria that they apply? Will the Government also now confirm that action will be taken against those responsible for these other violations? If not, how will the Government show that it is not being applied to Israel alone?