Military Intervention Under the Rules of International Law: Yemen as a Model

Abstract

The intervention of the Saudi-led Arab coalition in Yemen has raised a number of questions regarding the justifications for its legitimacy, objectives, and reasons, and its compliance with international law. This is particularly true given the differing arguments of the states supporting the intervention. A new problem has also arisen through some states' attempts to establish new practices and views, rendering the authorization of the use of force by the Security Council unnecessary for states and organizations to intervene. Rather, a Security Council resolution stating that the humanitarian situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security is sufficient.
This research clarifies and discusses the concept of international intervention and its types. It also studies and analyzes military intervention in Yemen and the extent to which it complies with international law. The implications of the intervention of the coalition states in Yemen are then explained. The researcher reached a number of conclusions and recommendations, the most important of which are: The disagreement among international law scholars regarding the concept and legitimacy of intervention revolves around the right of one or more states to intervene outside the scope of international law. Intervention undertaken by the United Nations, however, is almost unanimously agreed upon among legal scholars. Furthermore, the principles underlying international relations between states are based more on political visions than on the provisions of international law and national constitutions.
The military intervention and war on Yemen are considered an unjust war that has crossed all legal and political boundaries and constitutes an aggression against Yemeni and Arab national security, as it is a war of comprehensive destruction for both parties. The Yemeni situation is exceptional among modern armed conflicts and evidence of the contradictions of international justice. Dealing selectively with international issues does not serve the future of criminal justice, which the international community seeks to achieve. There are many objective manifestations that indicate the prevailing contradiction within the international justice system. This requires the international community to rectify the existing flaw in this system and not to relinquish or waive the right of the Yemeni state and people to hold the states participating in the war, which have attacked Yemen’s land and people, legally responsible internationally for this war and its consequences, and to compensate for the resulting damages and address its current and future material and moral repercussions.