Weapon restrictions on Israel struck down by Finland

Finland’s parliament has rejected a citizens’ initiative that aimed to restrict weapons purchases from Israel, voting it down with a large majority.

The original initiative (KAA 4/2025) was submitted by members of the public and called on Finland to introduce legislation requiring that all defense procurements be assessed not only on performance, cost, and effectiveness, but also against international human rights standards, international humanitarian law, and broader foreign and security policy considerations.

It is important to note that the proposed bill focused on Finland’s state arms procurements and not on arms exports; the latter is already regulated by the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, whose purpose is to prevent weapons from being exported to countries where they may be used for genocide, human rights violations, war crimes, or against civilians.

Finnish arms procurements, however, are regulated by the Act on Public Defense and Security Procurements, which means they are carried out through competitive tendering, where priority is given to performance capability, price, and security of supply. In that case, the state has no obligation to consider the human rights situation of the supplier country or foreign and security policy issues.

While the initiative targeted all defense procurements and did not name any specific countries in the proposed law, it used Israel as its justification. Comments from politicians and activist groups show that Israel was the main focus of the initiative.

Parliament voted to reject the citizens' initiative

“It is quite clear that all arms trade with Israel should be stopped,” said Left Alliance MP and member of the Defense Committee Timo Furuholm. “This kind of dependence on a country at war, which repeatedly violates human rights and whose state leadership is accused of crimes against humanity, is contrary to Finland’s foreign and security policy.” His party supported the initiative.

For years, Finland has not exported any actual weapons to Israel. This was confirmed by Finnish Defense Minister Antti Hakkanen last year.

However, over the past 10 years, Finland has placed orders exceeding 800 million euros for weapons from Israel. The largest single acquisition was the David’s Sling air defense system, which was purchased in 2023 for 316 million euros. Rafael also provided the Finnish Army with Spike anti-tank missiles in 2022 for 213 million euros. The third largest purchase was the Gabriel anti-ship missiles bought by the navy in 2018, priced at 162 million euros.

When asked last year if the purchase of David’s Sling would be halted, Hakkanen said no, as they are “a critically important piece in Finland’s air defense.”

The initiative argued that the realization of human rights and international humanitarian law in the country from which defense equipment is procured significantly affects Finland’s security of supply. It then used the International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s genocide ruling to argue that the availability and maintenance of acquired weapons systems may be jeopardized if Israel violates international law and becomes subject to sanctions.

It added that arms export regulations are in place to ensure that security and defense equipment are not exported to countries that are parties to prolonged conflicts or human rights violations, but, for the same reason, importing weapons from countries that “violate humanitarian agreements more broadly or are accused of war crimes” should be regulated.

“If procurement is made from states involved in prolonged conflicts, it may, in the worst case, economically incentivize the continuation of those conflicts. Some companies may also cooperate with armed forces to test weapons in conflict areas. For example, Israel’s defense industry may have gained a competitive advantage by being able to test products developed on Palestinian territories and in the war in Gaza, thereby increasing global demand for Israeli arms,” it said.

“Because arms trade involves human rights issues in both exports and imports, it is justified to extend the assessment of human rights impacts and compliance with humanitarian law to defense procurements as well.”

Once submitted by the citizens, the initiative was sent to Parliament and assigned to the Defense Committee for review. The Defense Committee then examined it and recommended rejecting the initiative.

The Defense Committee heard representatives from the Defense Ministry, the Foreign Affairs Ministry, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Finnish Defense Forces, industry representatives, researchers, NGOs, and representatives of the initiative’s authors. It also received written statements from experts and organizations, including the Finnish Red Cross and Amnesty International Finland.

In its final report, the Defense Committee said it found the initiative valuable but that, overall, it would likely reduce procurement options, lead to slow decision-making, and weaken defense capability, while having only a limited impact on humanitarian law compliance.

The committee said it considers that existing legislation, based on EU directives and national security exceptions, provides a sufficient legal framework to account for security and foreign policy considerations. It also argued that no comparable regulation exists in peer countries, and EU policy aims to reduce bureaucracy in defense procurement.