The Conflict in Yemen from a Normative Approach: A Study on the Moral Responsibility of the Parties to the War Since 2015

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to determine whether the war in Yemen can be characterized as an ethical and just war by applying normative theory in international relations. It also seeks to assess the application of just war theory to the violations committed by both parties to the conflict (the Houthi group and the Arab coalition) against civilians in Yemen.

Methods: The study examines violations by both sides of the Yemeni conflict through the lens of normative theory, focusing on four selected cases from the war in Yemen. It evaluates the adherence of the warring parties to the principles of just war theory both prior to and during the conflict.

Results: The findings reveal that neither the Arab coalition nor the Houthi group adhered to internationally recognized ethical standards during the conflict. By applying the two ethical theories, it becomes evident that civilian targets were attacked in the absence of proximate military objectives. These attacks often resulted in deadly consequences, many of which constituted clear violations of international law and international humanitarian law.

Conclusions: The study underscores the importance of building on the strengths of normative theory when examining the moral responsibility of any party engaged in warfare. It also highlights the need for more rigorous methods of applying these approaches, as obtaining detailed data from active war zones remains a significant challenge. As for just war theory, further elaboration on post-war law is essential, as this is critical for establishing lasting peace between current adversaries once hostilities cease.