Is the international arms business above the law, and of the rule of law? It is reasonable to ask oneself this question after Britain’s decision to discontinue a major investigation of suspected corruption implicating BAE Systems, the United Kingdom’s principal defence manufacturer, in the context of the Al Yamamah contract for the delivery of British Tornado aircraft to Saudi Arabia which some have called ‘the Contract of the Century’. On 14 December 2006 the Director of Britain’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced that he was discontinuing an investigation into allegations that illegal commissions had been paid by BAE Systems to officials in Saudi Arabia (even, some have alleged, to members of the Saudi Royal Family). He explained that: ‘This decision has been taken following representations that have been made both to the Attorney General and the Director of the SFO concerning the need to safeguard national and international security. It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest. No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest.’

The aim of this article is to examine the extent to which this decision, fully approved by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is compatible with the international rules relative to the fight against corruption.

The Al Yamamah case

In 1985, with the support of Margaret Thatcher’s government, British Aerospace (now BAE Systems) signed a contract to supply 200 Tornado combat aircraft and other items to the Royal Saudi Air Force. The contract is more generally known by the name Al Yamamah (‘The Dove’ in Arabic). It has several phases and different chapters (concerning equipment, maintenance, services, etc.) and by the end of 2005 had already brought £43 billion (€65.3 billion) to BAE Systems. According to the British press, it is not only the biggest arms deal ever concluded by the United Kingdom, but it is also the single biggest sale of British products in the country’s history.