Hispanic-Israeli commercial relations face an unprecedented crisis in recent years, the product of the war in Gaza and the humanitarian massacre that accompanies it. In a scenario of intense tension, the Spanish government has broken about twenty defense contracts with Israeli companies for more than 1.2 billion euros. This drastic political decision, formalized through a total embargo of weapons by the Executive, has triggered a debate of great legal, ethical and economic draft in companies that have commercial ties with the Hebrew State, and that are not only reduced to the defense and security sector. According to the Institute of Foreign Trade (ICEX), in 2024 Spain sold merchandise to Israel for a total amount of 1,722 million euros, compared to imports during that same year of 906 million. Since the conflict broke out in October 2023 following the terrorist attacks of Hamas, commercial relations between Spain and Israel have been reduced since the record reached 2022, in which 2022 They produced Spanish exports of 2,170 million and imports of 987 million. The balance offers a favorable commercial balance of about 1.1 billion. In spite of everything, Spain exported 866.7 million euros to Israel between January and June, 2.54% more than in the same period last year, and 1.8% of total exports. However, imports of Israeli products fell 6.6% and stood at 466 million euros. According to data from the Spanish export credit insurance company (CESCE) 126 Spanish companies exported products or services to Israel in 2024. Companies face a strong pressure from public opinion – organized by the images of the humanitarian disaster caused by the conflict – to limit or cancel their commercial relations with Israeli companies, as the government has done. But transferring the public to the private is not so easy. The lawyer and magistrate in leave Javier Pujol considers that a company cannot unilaterally cancel a valid contract with a counterpart that fulfills its commitments “only for political or ideological reasons, unless there is an express clause in the contract that allows it: the so -called ethics, compliance or responsible behavior clauses sanctions or prohibitions of hiring with companies from a certain country or sector ”. If none of these conditions occurs, it emphasizes, the cancellation could constitute a contractual breach with the risk of compensation. Javier Pujol believes that “the possibility of forcing third parties, whether these suppliers or subcontractors, to break their contracts with an Israeli company could generate a risk of contractual responsibility against them if it was not provided in the agreements or, even, even an extra -contractual responsibility for the Israeli company if an illegitimate induction is demonstrated to break its contracts. ”
Evaluate the dangers
In tense geopolitical contexts, says Lucía Sánchez-Acña, vice president of the Spanish Association of Compliance (ASCOM), «the responsible thing is to reevaluate the risk with verifiable criteria that must be documented and channeled by three ways: legal, compliance and internal government.» For the Vice President of ASCOM, there is no right of contractual termination for political reasons that, as such, it is not a sufficient basis for it, although “they are well -written contractual clauses and objective facts framed in due diligence policies. In strict sense, an ethical code of company cannot serve to break contractual links for political reasons”, since the general rule remains agrees. They fulfill. Only if the contract expressly provides for it and “if the supplier must comply with the code of conduct and anticipate that its non -observance is a cause of resolution, this clause is the legal basis to end the link,” he says. The expert insists on legal certainty and prudence against hasty decisions: “in tense geopolitical contexts, the responsible thing is to reassess the risk with verifiable criteria”. For its part, Fernández Rozas believes that the situation may be different if the restrictions affect the fulfillment of contracts by private or private companies that may be affected by government measures or in the case of imports of products originating in Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. «In these cases, individuals or companies can invoke as a cause of exemption from responsibility for non -compliance with the force majeure in its aspect of ‘legal impossibility’, recognized in general in all legal systems. In these cases, the contract is resolved, but there is no compensation for damages.» With regard to third parties in the supply chain of a company, indicates Lucía Sánchez-Chaña, we must identify concrete and demonstrable risks such as, for example, entities or sectors subjected to sanctions or with credible allegations of serious violations.
Human Rights
Lucía Sánchez-Acaña (ASCOM) warns that the issue is not «who is traded with its nationality», but what objective risks that relationship «and if it violates contractual and compliance obligations.» In its opponion, it is advisable to «be to avoid broad politicians and, instead, impose obligations on the result of compliance and human rights to the entire value chain.» For professor Fernández Rozas, it is not conceivable that the contracts have use limitations. «Although in world trade there is the tendency to be executed with respect to human rights.»