Policy Analysis by Abrar Salhuba, Staff Writer and Robin Madi, Staff Writer

June 24th, 2020

Yemen is one of the three countries alongside Iraq and Syria located in the Middle East which have been experiencing conflict for a period of over a decade. However, unlike Syria and Iraq media coverage over the crisis occurring in Yemen has not been as prominent as one would expect the crisis’s severity to warrant. The media’s narrative when it does deign to report on Yemen does it with a particular emphasis on the proxy war taking place there between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Disregarding reports of the more urgent crisis happening in Yemen where one child dies every 10 minutes and more than 400,000 children who die of starvation. Independent Yemeni journalist, Afrah Nasser, describes western coverage of Yemen as “parachute journalism”. With the refugees coming into Europe being mostly from Syria and Iraq, western coverage is more concerned with events that affect them and since what is occurring in Yemen has no direct effect on them, then it’s not considered as newsworthy. (Sharma,2017) Noting that news outlets main goal is profit among other motivations, it is futile in terms of monetary gain to report on events that will not concern their audiences. Baraa Shiban, a Yemeni human rights activist is quoted in telling DW, "There isn't a direct or immediate threat coming to western countries from Yemen," (Sharma,2017)

 

The Political Scene 

The lack of media coverage on Yemen is due to the conflict of interest it poses to western corporate media. This is due to governments, such as the UK and US, selling arms to Saudi Arabia a main aggressor in the war taking place in Yemen. As such reporting on the conflict taking place might prove to aggravate civil society. The UK alone sold 3.7 billion euros worth of arms to Saudi Arabia during the kingdom’s military campaign against Yemen. As for the US it reportedly sold 107 billion euros worth of arms to Saudi Arabia in the span of eight years under president Obama. (Sharma,2017)

 

Yemen has been experiencing civil war since 2011 when a political transition after the Arab Spring failed to succeed. Longtime President Ali Abdullah Saleh was forced to hand over power to his deputy, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi. As president Hadi was unable to handle the range of problems his new position incurred including yet not limited to, as Jihadists, a separatist movement in the south, food shortage, unemployment, and the standing loyalty of security to the previous president Saleh. The Houthi’s, a Shia minority who had previously fought against President Salah, took advantage of the shift in power and seized the North of, Saada Province, and nearby areas as their own. With growing support for the Houthi movement, they were able to take over the capital of Sanaa. President Hadi was forced to escape abroad in March 2015 and believing that the Houthi’s were backed by Iran, Saudi Arabia led an air campaign against them. Leading to diminishing Iran’s presence in Yemen and the reinstatement of president Hadi. The Houthis remain in power and have not relinquished their seizure of Sanaa nor the North Western Yemen. They have gone on to capture a third city, Taiz, and continue to engage Saudi Arabia by attacking them through drone and missile attacks, often in response to imminent threats. In 2019 the Houthis claimed responsibility over the attack of Saudi Arabia’s Eastern oil fields. However, both the US and Saudi Arabia claim that it was Iran that launched the attack. Al-Qaeda and the Islamic state throughout this took control of the south of Yemen and carry out attacks against Aden. (BBC,2020)

These political conflicts have caused one of the most dangerous civil wars of our time, leading to the possible extinction of Yemenis, and grave breaches of International Humanitarian Law. 

A quick apercu on International Humanitarian Law 

Some would say that the laws of war are as old as war itself, however, the official birth of modern international humanitarian law (IHL in short) was with the adoption of the first Geneva convention in 1864. If you’re familiar with IHL, you may have heard about the other 3 Geneva conventions that followed the first one, alongside the additional protocols of 1977 and the Hague conventions. These treaties, alongside other international conventions, judicial decisions, and international humanitarian customs, form the referendum of the law of armed conflicts (another analogy for IHL). 

What are the basic rules of IHL then?

As much as this subject can be vastly explained, the core fundamentals of IHL can be listed as such:

• The distinction between civilians and combatants.

• The prohibition to attack those hors de combat (i.e. those not directly engaged in hostilities).

• The prohibition to inflict unnecessary suffering.

• The principle of necessity.

• The principle of proportionality.

The legacy of all these jurisdictions, aiming mainly at protecting civilians and victims of acts of aggression, urging the use of legal means only during the attacks on combatants, and the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) in the most humane way possible, was effectively applied firstly in the international criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and Yugoslavia (ICTY), bringing justice to the victims of  the atrocious acts of violence, and prosecuting the responsible parties for the acts of aggression inflicted upon these 2 countries.

After these two ad-hoc tribunals, the necessity of an independent body of the UN capable of prosecuting individuals responsible of grave breaches of IHL, gave birth to the International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the Rome Statute. War crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and since the beginning of July 2018 the crime of aggression, are all within the scope of jurisdiction of the ICC. However, the ICC has the power to intervene by the power of complementarity, meaning that it may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act, but in reality, are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings and only in countries that have ratified the ICC treaty. It is critical to not, however, that no case may be initiated by the ICC without the approval of both the defendant and plaintiff. This means that should a case be brought upon the US, for example, the US is in full right to reject the case and as such the mandate of the ICC dictates the case may not be opened.

The Yemeni Humanitarian Chaos

“ARMED CONFLICTS” is the new term used to describe “wars” and is what describes the clashes happening in Yemen. Several factors contribute to that qualification, such as the exhibition of a certain degree of intense hostility, measured by the weapons employed, and a certain level of organization and control, in order to sustain military operations and adhering to international humanitarian law. 

Even though the conflicts in Yemen are backed by numerous countries, it is considered as a “non-international armed conflict” between the Houthis and the Saudi Arabia-led coalition. This categorification is attributed since the conflict had arisen between two non-state armed forces. 

In theory, the conflict should be limited to military objectives, and that the parties must distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants, refraining from attacks on hospitals, homes, apartments and businesses, places of worship, hospitals, schools, and cultural monument unless they are being used for military purposes and thus become military objectives.

Alas, in times of war, only the winners decide what war crimes were and what were not. Civilian objects are bombarded constantly by both parties. Atrocious killings to rape crimes and torture are afflicted to the people. Saudi-led coalition airstrikes have killed thousands of civilians.

A string of hope 

According to Amnesty International, the Prosecutor of the ICC must launch an investigation on the role of executives of European arms companies and licensing officials in violations of international humanitarian law that could amount to war crimes in Yemen.

 In fact, in a revolutionary step took on the 11th of December 2019, the European center for Constitutional and Human rights (ECCHR), and Mwatana for human rights from Yemen along with its partner organizations – the International Secretariat of Amnesty International, the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) based in the United Kingdom, Centre d’Estudis per la Pau J.M. Delàs (Centre Delàs) from Spain, and Osservatorio Permanente sulle Armi Leggere e le Politiche di Sicurezza e Difesa (O.P.A.L.) from Italy – submitted a Communication to the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the situation in Yemen, urging him to investigate on whether arms companies and government officials, by authorizing and exporting arms to members of the Saudi Arabia-led coalition armies, have contributed to serious violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen that have amounted to war crimes under articles 8(2)(c)(i), 8(2)(e)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Rome Statute.

The Communication demands that the OTP investigates corporate executives and government officials’ potential complicity in 26 airstrikes on residential buildings, schools, hospitals, a museum, and world heritage sites.

“Any company executive can read a newspaper and understand that the human rights risk assessments of some European governments have failed catastrophically,” said Patrick Wilcken researcher on Arms Control, Security & Human Rights at Amnesty International. “Company executives have had ample time and access to plenty of reliable information to reassess their decisions to supply the Coalition in the light of the horrific events in Yemen. Hiding behind flawed government decision-making is not good enough - now they could face criminal charges before an international criminal court.

 In fact, when grave breaches of IHL are committed, criminal responsibility is not only inflicted on combatants and the government for approving export licenses, corporate executives and managers’ role in dictatorships and wars can also and must be subject to investigation

According to the UN guiding principles reporting framework (UNGPs), the companies’ responsibility to respect human rights “exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights,” as these responsibilities constitute the universal code of conduct applicable to all businesses and in all situations.

It is imminent to state lastly, that when it comes to International Humanitarian Law, there’s a certain “exceptionalist ideology” where certain countries are just immune from investigation and prosecution and we can all agree that the US has been one of them for decades.

 The US have caused several wars over the past decades, breaching peace and causing severe destruction upon the unfortunate victims. In its latest attempt to brag about its immunity, the president of the United States imposed new sanctions on several individuals associated with the International Criminal Court. This act solidifies American Exceptionalism when it comes to IHL. This situation was perfectly described by David Kaye for the Foreign Policy journal “the phrase “human rights” in American policy has almost always referred to what others violate, and it rarely comes back to what the U.S. government is obligated to protect at home. The United States may use the language of human rights law to condemn official abuses against minorities worldwide, or violence against protesters in Venezuela, Hong Kong, Iran, and elsewhere, but it bristles when those same norms are deployed against it.”

Bibliography

Yemen crisis: Why is there a war? (2020, February 10). Retrieved June 20, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423

Sharma, G. (2017, January 17). Yemen conflict all but ignored by the West: DW: 17.01.2017. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from https://www.dw.com/en/yemen-conflict-all-but-ignored-by-the-west/a-37157913 (n.d.).

EECHR. (n.d.). Accountability for alleged war crimes in Yemen –. Retrieved from https://www.ecchr.eu/fileadmin/Q_As/QA_ICC_arms_Yemen_ECCHR_CAAT_Mwatana_Amnesty_Delas_Rete.pdf

international, a. (n.d.). ICC must investigate arms company executives linked to Yemen war crimes allegations.Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/12/icc-investigate-arms-companies-yemen-war-crimes-allegations/

paper, I. e. (n.d.). The principle of complementarity in practice . Retrieved from https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/20BB4494-70F9-4698-8E30-907F631453ED/281984/complementarity.pdf

WATCH, H. R. (April 6, 2015 10:00PM EDT). Retrieved from Q & A on The Conflict in Yemen and International Law: https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/06/q-conflict-yemen-and-international-law