CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Buys E, Garwood-Gowers A. J. Conflict Secur. Law 2019; 24(1): 1-33. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2019, Oxford University Press) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
unavailable |
|
Abstract |
Launched on 26 March 2015, the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen has considerably intensified the complex conflict ravaging the country. Despite scholars identifying difficulties with the self-defence and intervention by invitation arguments offered as the primary legal justifications, the Saudi action received mostly approval or acquiescence from the international community. However, a largely overlooked feature of the justificatory discourse surrounding the Yemen intervention is the use of humanitarian and 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) type language by the intervening states. This article examines the legal, political and normative significance of this discourse, arguing that humanitarian language was deployed to bolster the perceived legitimacy of military action. Although from a legal perspective the Yemen intervention does not strengthen claims for the existence of a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention, by framing its military action in terms that invoke widely accepted humanitarian and R2P norms Saudi Arabia created scope for the international community to support and legitimise the intervention. Contrary to the oft-cited assertion that humanitarian norms are primarily tools used to justify Western interventionism, the Yemen experience illustrates that such discourse is increasingly being used by a broader range of states, including some authoritarian non-Western states. We argue further that Saudi Arabia's justification for the intervention also draws on existing 'war on terror' rhetoric, indicating that such language can increase the international political acceptance of legally-questionable interventions. Overall, the Yemen intervention continues a recent trend in which states weave together a variety of legal and political rationales for military action when constructing their justificatory discourse. Language: en |