Military intervention in Yemen: the international system in crisis

Yemen is in the process of descending into full civil war. The horrendous violence of the Houthis
against civilians is now being intensified, this time by  the Saudi lead military attacks on populated
areas in Aden, Sanaa, Taez and Hodaida. In Aden, the number of civilian
casualties continues to rise as groups of civilians take up arms against Houthi
aggression, while warplanes of the Saudi-led coalition bomb rebel
targets to the north.

The justification for this military intervention and massive
escalation of violence was the request made by President Abd-Rabbu Mansour
Hadi for support to "protect Yemen and the Yemeni people from the Houthi
destructive aggression". The United Nations has been, in effect  a passive bystander while some States – the
US, UK, Turkey,  Egypt, Kuwait, UAE,
Qatar and Bahrain, have come out in support. There is nothing in latest UN
Security Council resolution to authorise use of
force in this situation, nor in any of the previous
Resolutions, on the contrary, they
contain language which show what steps should be taken to actually uphold the National
Dialogue so that there would be no recourse to
supposed military  solutions.

In the absence of authority from the Security Council, force by another
State can only be lawfully used in self-defence. Hadie invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter on collective
self-defence to request military intervention. He probably did not have to, since there are claims of legality if
intervention is made with the consent of the state on whose territory the force
is being used. The latter is always murky, and in the case of Yemen
particularly so since the legitimacy of Hadi’s Presidency has to be questioned.

It can be argued that Hadi’s official period in office ended in
February 2014. Although he continued as Head of State during the expected
transition period and was recognized as such internationally, he also
officially resigned in January 2015 after he was forced out of Sanaa by Houthi
military aggression. In February, he reclaimed the Presidency from his new
position in the city of Aden. Since the launch of the military intervention,
Hadi has been outside Yemen and is currently resident in Saudi Arabia. 

Basically the
situation is this: a quasi legitimate president living in Saudi Arabia asks
that state to go bomb and strafe his own country and his own people, and
invokes collective security as justification. Yes, the Houthis have been
targeting and killing civilians and controlling land with impunity. However, responding to violence with increased use
of explosive weapons will only endanger more civilians and destroy civilian
infrastructure – even when not directly targeted.

International
law is also often subjugated to profits. Arms production and the international
arms trade are lucrative industries that help perpetuate the systems that rely
on military solutions to 'solve' all problems. The conflict in Yemen is no
exception, with arms flooding into the country from all sides. The US is using
the opportunity to reignite arms transfers to Egypt with an agreement to send
Egypt Hellfire missiles (which have been used in populated areas to
devastating effects in many conflicts in the region), while it is engaged in the bombing against the Houthis in Yemen.

The international community seems to think this is acceptable. That
this conduct is "okay". The UN and the EU have criticised, but been silent about the consequences and what action they will take if there is
no ceasefire and Saudi continues to bomb. That being "okay" is the result of the way international order
has evolved since international law – human rights law in particular – was
subjugated to the 'war on terror' post 9/11, and concepts of national security
which are all about the use of force.

Military operations by the US and its partners are justified on the
basis of collective self-defence, again pursuant to Article 51 of the United
Nations Charter. That claim relies on
the premise that defensive force may be used by a 'victim' state against an
armed attack by a non-state armed group located in the territory of another
state if the territorial state is ‘unwilling or unable’ to prevent further
attacks by that group. In Yemen's case it is unwilling or unable to prevent the
violence of the Houthis and so Article 51 kicks in. However, this claim fundamentally broadens the traditional
interpretation of international law. The justification has been used to attack ISIL in Iraq and latterly
Syria. Now it's Yemen (though not to forget that the US was using drones to
attack inside Yemen prior to this latest intervention). Louise Aramatsu of Chatham House and
an expert in international law, is currently grappling with just this complex
issue:  Does the standard of ‘unwilling
and unable’ represent a security policy statement or international law?  What is its historical pedigree? What is the
relationship between the standard and other treaty (UN Charter) and customary
international law obligations, including in particular, the rules on state
responsibility and the principle of non-intervention? Should the standard allow
for the lawful use of force by states? 

Law is important, and its interpretation regulates what we can and
cannot do. Without it we are lost, and
are subjugated to the will of those who can wield the most violence. Right now
it looks as if we are already there. We
should be worried. It's not just about solidarity with the people of Yemen who
are being subjected to the horrors of massive bombardments with no solutions
being offered.

The bigger picture is terrifying. The Arab League is to create a joint regional military
force (of Sunni states) so we should
expect more random military operations in a highly fragile and militarized
region, undermining not only the position of the UN Security Council, but more
importantly endangering the viability of arguments opposing military
intervention based on international law and in favour of negotiated settlements
which ensure the broad participation of
civil society, and in particular the real and meaningful engagement by women.
Anything less than this will not lead to a sustainable solution.

This is serious. There is a crisis in the international system which
has to be addressed and immediately. There are specific and simple steps to
take based on international law: recalling the decisions of the
International Court of Justice in Bosnia and Serbia, and the largely ignored Responsibility to Protect, there are various
responsibilities falling on those states which have geographic proximity,
political, economic  military or other
influence, and they must use that influence to uphold the human rights of the
domicile population by working with the state in question to secure them. It is
simply not a solution to use military force to protect civilians or uphold
their human rights.

One hopes and assumes that there is a flurry of activity at the UN and
within the Arab League to find a peaceful solution. One hopes. But to date the
solutions proffered –  be it in Ukraine,
Iraq, Syria et al – are all about who to arm and which side to support, (not
all are equally culpable, Germany has taken a strong position on Ukraine and
ceased supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia) and the language in general is of
military escalation. It has become the default position of international
relations. A rational human being would know that there should be an immediate
arms embargo on all parties – which obviously includes the international belligerents such as Saudi Arabia. There must be serious engagement by
neighbouring States, including Iran, to stop the escalation into full on civil
war and reconstruct the National Dialogue. Pressure can be brought, economic
and political.

It could have happened in Syria, but the powers could not agree so the descent into hell happened.
There is a Responsibility
to Protect, it is both legal and moral.
Entire populations must not be treated as pawns in somebody else's power games.
All efforts must be taken to ensure there is a concrete roadmap for a political
solution to the conflict. The military intervention must stop immediately. The
UN was set up to keep peace, but right now the Security Council and member
states are passively standing by as the conflict deteriorates, and risks
becoming an open regional conflict.

Madeleine Rees will be speaking at the WILPF centenary conference in the Hague April 27th – 29th.