 |
| The city of Sana'a in Yemen was taken over by the Houthis last year. But is the attack from Saudi Arabia a legal response? Image: Shutterstock |
Is the Saudi Arabian-led war on Yemen legal? The issue isn’t cut and dried, to say the
least.
A coalition of Saudi-led countries has been bombing Yemen in
an attempt to depose an Iranian-backed rebel group that took control of the
capital Sana’a late last year. The
bombings have killed hundreds of people, including many civilians. The Saudi justification for the attack was
that they were coming to the aid of a neighboring country in need after a specific
request from its governing authority—Yemen President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi.
However, the legitimacy of Hadi’s rule is in question,
making the entire proceedings potentially illegal.
The
Houthi rebels, a northern Zaidi sect that has been in conflict with the
government off and on for years, seized control of Sana’a in September, at
which point very little of the Yemeni army was still responsive to Hadi.
Hadi
came into power after the Arab Spring protests that removed Ali Adullah Saleh,
but the democratic election that brought Hadi to the forefront saw him as the
only candidate. His term was extended
with full democratic elections in 2014, but from there, it has continued
without a poll.
In
January, with his palace blockaded by the Houthis, Hadi announced his
resignation. However, after he escaped
to the port city of Aden, he reversed his position. Afterward, he fled to Saudi Arabia, where he
is now based.
So
who actually has the authority to make legal decisions for the country?
“If
Hadi were still in Sana’a and had a relatively modest rebellion on his hands,
there is little doubt he could consent to have other states come in and help
him. That is not particularly controversial in international law,” said Ashley
Deeks, associate professor at the University of Virginia Law School and a
former assistant legal adviser at the US Department of State. “But it does get increasingly controversial
the less control the requester has. At this point, the country seems to have
spun out of control.”
Hadi
claims his request is justified based on Article 51 of the UN Charter, which
gives countries the right to engage in self-defence when under attack. But Article 51 is relevant to international
conflicts, not domestic disputes.
According
to experts, Hadi’s legal options are limited to working with the UN Security
Council; however, no ruling has been passed or appears to be in the works at
this time. Hadi could also have the
invasion legalized if Saudi Arabia or another neighboring country felt the
conflict presented a threat to their own security, making Article 51 legally
relevant.
In
the meantime, the confusion and violence continues, and civilians are paying
the price.
إرسال تعليق