Why Bar Associations Must Act: The Dutch Debate on Complicity and the Responsibility of Lawyers in International Crimes

On 2 December, the Dutch Bar Association (NOvA) will hold an extraordinary assembly to address a question that is rapidly becoming unavoidable across the global legal profession: What is the responsibility of lawyers when their work intersects with a state committing international crimes? The Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) welcomes the participation of its co-founder, Haroon Raza, a criminal defence attorney with more than twenty years of experience, in this meeting . Mr. Raza's contribution focuses on a reality many in the profession have long avoided confronting — that legal advice, corporate structuring, and financial facilitation can play a direct role in sustaining Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.

The Professional Environment: A Legal System Intertwined with Global Capital

The Netherlands stands at the centre of a dense network of financial and corporate structures. Tens of billions of euros connected to Israeli entities — including companies tied to the military, surveillance, technological development, and settlement expansion — flow through Dutch holding companies, investment funds, and advisory firms.

Lawyers are involved at every step: drafting corporate agreements, approving investments, advising on compliance, structuring acquisitions, and legitimising transactions.

When these structures are linked to a state perpetrating mass killing, starvation, forced displacement, and systematic destruction of civilian life, the role of the legal profession must be examined with honesty rather than ritualised neutrality.

Haroon Raza: urging the Dutch Bar to confront the profession’s role in enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Motion 3: An Attempt to Define Professional Boundaries

At the centre of the upcoming assembly is Motion 3, a proposal seeking to address precisely this challenge. The motion calls for the establishment of an independent committee within the Dutch Bar Association to evaluate the responsibilities of lawyers involved in high-risk transactions — particularly those connected to situations where there is a serious risk of contributing to war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid, or genocide.

Its purpose is straightforward:

• to articulate clear due-diligence requirements in high-risk contexts,
• to identify warning signs of potential complicity,
• to define professional standards of conduct, and
• to provide guidance on when lawyers must decline or withdraw from engagements.

Motion 3 is not a political statement. It is an attempt to bring the profession’s established principles — independence, integrity, and the duty to avoid unlawful conduct — into alignment with the realities of modern global practice. Comparable standards already exist for sanctions regimes, anti-money-laundering responsibilities, and other areas where legal services intersect with international harm.

The question is why similar principles have not yet been applied to Israel’s actions in Gaza, despite the scale and severity of the crimes.

A Profession Confronted With Its Own Infrastructure

Large law firms and corporate practices in major financial centres — London, New York, Paris, Frankfurt, Singapore, Dubai, Toronto — routinely advise clients with direct or indirect links to Israeli institutions, military industries, and settlement enterprises. In many cases, risk assessments are superficial or absent. The assumption that “legal advice is neutral” has become a shield against accountability.

This assumption is no longer tenable.

Speaking ahead of the assembly, Mr. Raza addressed the profession with unusual clarity:

“

When a legal opinion, a contract, or a corporate structure helps sustain a system committing genocide, the lawyer involved cannot hide behind claims of neutrality. Our profession must recognise that routine legal work can become a vehicle for atrocity. Motion 3 is about safeguarding the integrity of the law — and ensuring we do not enable Israel’s crimes in Gaza.

”

His statement reflects a broader shift: lawyers are beginning to acknowledge that their professional activities can contribute materially to the functioning of systems responsible for mass violence.

The Broader Context: Accountability Beyond the Battlefield

The Hind Rajab Foundation’s work has repeatedly demonstrated that atrocity crimes do not occur in isolation. They are supported by corporate supply chains, financial networks, investment portfolios, digital infrastructure, and legal advice. Israel’s genocide in Gaza is no exception.

Legal professionals occupy a crucial position within these systems. Without their services, many transactions linked to military procurement, settlement construction, surveillance systems, or economic extraction simply cannot proceed.

The question for bar associations worldwide is not whether their members have political opinions. The question is whether their work strengthens — knowingly or unknowingly — the machinery of genocide.

A Necessary Evolution in Professional Self-Regulation

Motion 3 offers a model of what serious professional self-governance can look like. Bar associations across Europe, North America, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia should consider similar mechanisms:

• independent oversight bodies,
• mandatory due-diligence frameworks,
• explicit standards on complicity,
• and training on international criminal liability for legal advisors.

Such measures are not symbolic. They reflect the reality that the legal profession is now deeply embedded in the structures that make international crimes possible.

The Moment Ahead

Israel’s actions in Gaza — mass killing, destruction of civilian infrastructure, systematic starvation, and the targeted annihilation of families — constitute genocide. In this context, the legal profession’s responsibilities cannot remain undefined.

The debate within the Dutch Bar Association is a signal to bar associations everywhere:
The age of pretending that legal work exists outside the world’s worst crimes is over.

The credibility of the profession depends on its willingness to recognise this moment — and to act accordingly.