View In the Name of God flipbook.
Page | 1 In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate To the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia To the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, the Crown Prince, and the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Subject: An Urgent Legal and Humanitarian Appeal on Behalf of the Yemeni People to Cease Hostilities Against the Republic of Yemen, End Military Intervention, Lift Restrictions Imposed on Civilians, and Remedy the Harm Arising from Grave Violations of International Law Peace be upon you, We, the people of Yemen, in all our regions, communities, backgrounds, beliefs, and political orientations, address the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through this appeal—not as a declaration of hostility between two brotherly peoples, but as a legal, humanitarian, and moral demand to end the suffering of an entire people, bring an end to hostilities, and uphold international law, justice, and peace. We emphasize that the Yemeni people do not hold the Saudi people responsible for the actions of their government or armed forces. Rather, we address the Saudi authorities as the entity responsible for decisions and for the conduct of its armed forces and agencies, as well as entities operating under its direction or support, and as a state that is a member of the United Nations and party to the Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols, and other relevant international instruments. First: Regarding the Duration of the Military Intervention Since 26 March 2015, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, leading a military coalition, has conducted military operations inside Yemen, including airstrikes and other military operations, as well as restrictions affecting the movement of people, goods, and imports, with wide-ranging consequences for the civilian population. Over the course of the conflict, United Nations bodies have documented serious violations attributed to various parties to the conflict, including the Saudi-led coalition. This appeal does not, however, absolve any other party from responsibility for violations it has committed. The United Nations Group of Eminent International and Regional Experts on Yemen concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that individuals within the coalition, particularly from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, may have committed acts that could amount, subject to determination of individual responsibility by a competent and independent judicial authority, to war crimes. These included killing, cruel treatment, torture, sexual violence, violations of fair-trial guarantees, and attacks that failed to comply with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution.
Page | 2 Second: The Protection of Civilians Is a Legal Obligation That Cannot Be Suspended by Military Justifications International humanitarian law does not grant any party to an armed conflict unlimited authority to use force. The rules of international humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols, and customary international law, require parties to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. They prohibit attacks directed against civilians and civilian objects and require compliance with the principles of proportionality, precaution, and military necessity. The International Committee of the Red Cross has affirmed that distinguishing between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives, is a fundamental rule of international humanitarian law and that civilians may not be made the object of attack. The United Nations human rights system has also documented allegations and reports concerning coalition airstrikes that were indiscriminate or disproportionate and indicated that some such acts may constitute war crimes. Accordingly, the deliberate or indiscriminate targeting of, or unlawful harm to, civilians, homes, schools, hospitals, markets, civilian transportation, and infrastructure indispensable to the survival of the population cannot be justified merely by invoking the existence of an armed conflict or an alleged military objective. Third: Attacks on Civilian Objects and Infrastructure During the years of war, Yemen has experienced extensive destruction of homes, civilian facilities, and vital infrastructure, including health and educational facilities and economic and public-service infrastructure. The United Nations has documented allegations and reports concerning strikes affecting civilian areas, including incidents resulting in the deaths and injuries of children, women, and other civilians, as well as serious damage to civilian property and facilities. The Group of Eminent International and Regional Experts also identified reasonable grounds to believe that, in certain airstrikes conducted by members of the coalition, the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution may have been violated. Accordingly, we call for independent and transparent investigations into all incidents involving allegations of attacks against civilians and civilian objects, the identification of individual and command responsibility, and the guarantee of victims' and their families' rights to truth, justice, and effective remedies.
Page | 3 Fourth: Blockade and Restrictions on the Entry of Food, Fuel, and Humanitarian Assistance The right to food, medicine, and water, as well as access to healthcare, is not a privilege granted during wartime. These are fundamental human rights. The Group of Eminent Experts documented the impact of restrictions imposed by the coalition on access to Yemen, including maritime restrictions and the closure of Sana'a International Airport. It noted that these measures had a disproportionate impact on the civilian population and that certain blockade measures could amount to collective punishment prohibited under international humanitarian law. The United Nations has also documented continuing restrictions on imports and their effects on shortages of fuel and food and rising prices, including instances in which vessels carrying essential fuel products were prevented or delayed from reaching the port of Hudaydah. Accordingly, we demand that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: 1. Lift any unlawful restrictions on the entry of food, medicine, fuel, and essential goods. 2. Ensure the rapid, safe, and unhindered passage of humanitarian assistance. 3. Refrain from using food, fuel, ports, or airports as instruments of pressure against the civilian population. 4. Ensure that patients and wounded persons can obtain medical treatment inside Yemen and abroad. 5. Respect the rules of international humanitarian law governing humanitarian relief. Fifth: Protection of Children Yemeni children have been among the groups most severely affected by the war. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed grave concern regarding the killing and injury of children in airstrikes since 2015. It has also highlighted the effects of military operations and the air and sea blockade on children's food security, as well as attacks affecting homes, medical facilities, schools, farms, markets, vehicles, and civilian gatherings. The Committee called on Saudi Arabia to cease airstrikes, protect children, facilitate humanitarian assistance, investigate violations, hold those responsible accountable, and provide remedies to victims. A child born into war, or who loses a parent, home, school, or health, cannot have his or her suffering reduced to a statistic. Therefore, protecting Yemen's children is not merely a political matter. It is a legal and humanitarian obligation.
Page | 4 Sixth: The International Legal Basis for Demanding an End to Hostilities This demand is based, among other things, on the following principles and rules: 1. The United Nations Charter Article 2(3) requires states to settle their disputes by peaceful means, while Article 2(4) requires states to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Article 51 recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs, while placing the exercise of that right within the framework of the United Nations Charter and requiring measures taken in self-defence to be reported to the Security Council. Accordingly, reliance upon a right of self-defence does not exempt any party from its obligations under international humanitarian law and cannot justify attacks against civilians or the commission of acts prohibited during armed conflict. 2. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 The Geneva Conventions establish protections for persons who are not taking an active part in hostilities and, through Common Article 3, prohibit violence to life and person, cruel treatment, torture, outrages upon personal dignity, hostage-taking, and other prohibited acts. 3. The Additional Protocols of 1977 The Additional Protocols reaffirm the principles of distinction and the protection of civilians and civilian objects and impose restrictions on the conduct of military operations. 4. Customary International Law Even where questions arise concerning the applicability of a particular treaty, fundamental principles of international humanitarian law—including civilian protection, distinction, proportionality, precaution, the prohibition of cruel treatment, and the prohibition of collective punishment— remain central legal principles applicable to armed conflicts. 5. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court The Rome Statute defines a range of acts as war crimes, including, in non-international armed conflicts, murder, torture, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, as well as intentionally directing attacks against civilian populations or civilians not directly participating in hostilities. Reference to the Rome Statute does not mean that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia automatically became a party to it. Rather, it is cited here as an important framework for defining international crimes and principles of individual criminal responsibility, while questions concerning jurisdiction remain matters to be determined under the applicable legal rules.
Page | 5 Seventh: Responsibility for Wrongful Acts and Reparation Where an internationally wrongful act is established, the law of state responsibility entails an obligation to cease the wrongful conduct, provide appropriate assurances of non-repetition where required, and make full reparation for the injury caused in accordance with international law. Responsibility should not be limited to financial compensation. Victims have rights to: • Know the truth; • Receive an independent and effective investigation; • Have those responsible identified; • Obtain accountability and prosecution where evidence and jurisdiction permit; • Receive compensation; • Receive rehabilitation; • Have their rights and property restored where possible; • Receive guarantees of non-repetition. The United Nations has raised concerns regarding the inadequacy of existing mechanisms for remedy, investigation, and accountability concerning violations attributed to the Saudi- and Emirati- led coalition and has called for responsibility to be addressed and for victims to receive full and effective remedies and compensation. Eighth: We Do Not Exempt Any Yemeni Party from Responsibility Our demand that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia cease its hostile actions does not mean that we absolve any Yemeni, regional, or international party of responsibility for violations it has committed. At the same time, we demand respect for international law by all parties, and accountability for anyone proven responsible for war crimes or grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights, regardless of identity, position, or affiliation. Justice cannot be justice if it is selective, and the protection of civilians cannot be divided according to political allegiance.
Page | 6 Ninth: The Demands of the Yemeni People On the basis of the foregoing, we urgently and unequivocally call upon the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to: First: Officially announce the cessation of all Saudi military and hostile operations against Yemen. Second: Cease all airstrikes and operations that may place civilians and civilian objects at risk. Third: End any unlawful blockade or restrictions affecting the entry of food, medicine, fuel, and humanitarian assistance. Fourth: Guarantee the freedom of movement of patients, wounded persons, travellers, and humanitarian supplies in accordance with international law. Fifth: Fully cooperate with any international, independent, and impartial investigation into violations attributed to Saudi forces or coalition forces. Sixth: Publish information concerning military operations and relevant internal investigations into incidents that resulted in civilian casualties, consistent with the requirements of justice and the rights of victims. Seventh: Ensure that no person proven criminally responsible escapes accountability, regardless of rank or position. Eighth: Recognize the right of civilian victims to compensation, reparation, and rehabilitation, and establish an independent, transparent, and accessible mechanism through which victims and their families can submit claims. Ninth: Make a meaningful contribution to the reconstruction of civilian facilities destroyed by military operations, as established by appropriate investigations and legal mechanisms. Tenth: Support an inclusive Yemeni political process, free from military coercion, that preserves Yemen's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the right of its people to determine their own future. Eleventh: Provide clear guarantees against the future use of military force as a means of imposing political solutions or altering the balance of political power inside Yemen. Twelfth: Respect all obligations of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the relevant Additional Protocols, and other applicable international obligations.
Page | 7 Tenth: A Message to the Saudi People Our message is not directed at the brotherly Saudi people as an enemy. Yemen and Saudi Arabia share bonds of geography, history, family, religion, and culture, and the border between the two countries should never become a barrier to brotherhood between their peoples. We believe that Saudi Arabia's security cannot be achieved through the destruction of Yemen, just as Yemen's security cannot be achieved through threatening Saudi Arabia. True security for both countries begins with ending the war, respecting sovereignty, alleviating suffering, and opening a path toward peace, justice, and reconciliation. Eleventh: The Final Appeal The war has continued for far too long, and its consequences have extended beyond politics and military affairs into the lives, dignity, and future of the Yemeni people. Therefore, we appeal to the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to take a historic and courageous decision: Stop the war. Stop targeting civilians. Lift restrictions on food, medicine, and humanitarian assistance. Open the way to justice and reparations. Make peace a permanent choice, not a temporary truce. The Yemeni people are not demanding the impossible. They are demanding what international law and fundamental principles of humanity recognize: the right to life, dignity, security, sovereignty, peace, and justice. We emphasize that these demands are not directed against the Saudi people and are not motivated by hatred or revenge. They are based on a fundamental principle: There can be no lasting peace without justice, no justice without truth, no truth without accountability, and no future for Yemen while war continues. Accordingly, we call upon the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to respond to this appeal and enter into an official and transparent process to end hostilities and address the consequences of the war, in a manner that ensures respect for international law and the rights of the Yemeni people and all victims of the conflict, regardless of their identity. On behalf of the Yemeni people
Page | 8 Legal and Human Rights Memorandum Concerning Responsibility for Starvation, Political Subjugation, and Attempts to Undermine Yemeni Identity To Whom It May Concern, Approaching this matter from a legal and human-rights perspective, the situation in Yemen should not be reduced merely to a military conflict between competing parties. It must also be examined in terms of the impact of military and economic policies on civilian populations, and whether certain policies have become instruments of collective subjugation and attempts to reshape the political and cultural identity of Yemeni society. At the outset, legal terminology must be precise: it cannot be conclusively stated that what is occurring in Yemen constitutes “genocide” as a matter of law unless the specific intent required under the Genocide Convention is established. Genocide requires one of the acts specified by law, accompanied by the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such. Among the prohibited acts is deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction, in whole or in part. Nevertheless, this does not diminish the seriousness of the facts that warrant investigation. I. Starvation Is Not a Lawful Means of Subjugating Civilians The prohibition against using starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare has become a rule of customary international humanitarian law and applies in both international and non-international armed conflicts. International humanitarian law also prohibits deliberately depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival. The United Nations has documented the effects of restrictions imposed by the Saudi-led coalition on access to Yemen, including the effective naval blockade and closure of Sana'a International Airport, and the resulting severe restrictions on imports and movement, contributing to the deterioration of the economy and humanitarian crisis and impeding humanitarian assistance. The central legal point is this: a political or military dispute with an armed group cannot lawfully be transformed into collective punishment of civilian populations living in areas under that group's control. The prohibition of collective punishment is a rule of international humanitarian law, and its violation may give rise to individual criminal responsibility where the elements of the relevant offense are established.
Page | 9 II. If Targeting Is Based on Religious Identity, the Matter Becomes Even More Serious Any evidence establishing that deprivation of food, medicine, or essential services was used deliberately to punish Yemenis because of their religious affiliation—including Yemenis belonging to Shi'a or Zaydi communities—or with the purpose of destroying the religious group itself, in whole or in part, should be independently investigated. At the same time, describing Saudi Arabia simply as “Sunni” and the targeted Yemenis as “Shi'a” is not, by itself, sufficient to establish genocide as a matter of law. What must be established is the specific intent to destroy, rather than merely the existence of sectarian hostility or regional alliances. If evidence establishes that conditions of life were deliberately imposed with the intent to physically destroy a religious group, in whole or in part, the conduct could fall within the legal framework of genocide. If that intent is not established, the same conduct may nevertheless constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, or other serious violations. III. From Warfare to a Project of Political Subjugation The military dimension cannot be separated from the political dimension. United Nations reporting has documented the significant military, political, and financial dependence of Yemen's internationally recognized government on Saudi support, with Riyadh playing a central role in political arrangements intended to shape Yemeni governance. This raises a legitimate political and legal question: Is the objective merely to support an independent Yemeni government, or has a degree of political, economic, and military dependence developed in which Yemeni decision-making has become subordinate to an external power? Modern forms of colonialism do not necessarily require direct occupation or the raising of a foreign flag over government institutions. They can take subtler forms: financial dependence, political influence, control over pathways to political power, support for particular elites, and the creation or preservation of a government that cannot survive without external protection. Legally, however, the specific facts establishing unlawful intervention or interference with the Yemeni people's right to self-determination must be demonstrated. Not every political alliance or instance of foreign support automatically constitutes “colonialism.”
Page | 10 IV. Relations With Iran Cannot Become a Pretext for Punishing an Entire People Even if political or military relationships between some Yemenis and Iran are established, legal responsibility is individual, not collective. Political affiliation or relations with a foreign state cannot lawfully transform millions of Yemeni civilians into legitimate targets for deprivation of food, medicine, or essential services. Conversely, any external military or political support provided by Iran to armed groups in Yemen should likewise be assessed under international law. It cannot itself be used to justify an indefinite war against the Yemeni population. The principle must be consistent: Neither Saudi Arabia, nor Iran, nor any other regional power has the right to turn Yemenis into instruments of a geopolitical struggle or hostages to a regional project. V. Yemeni and Arab History Demonstrates the Limits of Attempts to Erase Identity History demonstrates that military domination does not necessarily produce control over a people's identity. Yemen itself experienced prolonged forms of foreign intervention and domination, including British rule in Aden. Yet Yemeni identity did not disappear, nor did Yemen become a permanent cultural extension of the colonial power. The colonial experience instead contributed to the development of resistance to external domination. The same pattern can be seen particularly clearly in Algeria. French colonial rule lasted for more than a century and sought to reshape Algerian society according to French political and cultural models. Policies of assimilation, discrimination, and the marginalization of Arabic and Islamic institutions were accompanied by efforts to restructure education and political life. Yet Algerian identity survived, cultural and educational institutions of resistance developed, and the process ultimately culminated in a war of liberation and independence in 1962. This is not merely a historical coincidence. When an external power attempts to make identity something that must be eliminated, it can produce the opposite result: It can turn identity itself into an instrument of resistance. The experience of Algeria demonstrates how the preservation of language, religion, education, and historical memory can become central elements of resistance to foreign domination. The lesson for Yemen should not be ignored: Identity cannot simply be erased through economic pressure, bombardment, blockade, or the externally engineered restructuring of political elites.
Page | 11 VI. International Law Does Not Authorize Indefinite Suffering There is no rule of international law granting a state the right to keep an entire population in conditions of deprivation until it submits politically. On the contrary, international humanitarian law imposes clear limits on methods of warfare. It prohibits starvation of civilians, collective punishment, attacks against civilians, and, where the requisite elements are established, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The passage of time does not transform an unlawful act into a lawful one. Repetition does not make a violation legitimate. Years of suffering do not create a legal entitlement to continue the conduct causing that suffering. Conclusion Yemenis are not a population whose political and cultural identity can legitimately be redesigned from outside. If the objective of blockade, starvation, economic pressure, or political coercion is to force a population to abandon its identity, accept a government imposed upon it, or sever its cultural and historical connections, such a project faces both legal and historical limitations. Legally, the facts must be investigated and individual and command responsibility determined. The relevant authorities must assess whether the conduct constitutes war crimes, crimes against humanity, or, if the requisite specific intent is established, genocide. Historically, the experiences of Yemen, Algeria, and other Arab societies demonstrate that attempts to eradicate identity often produce resistance rather than submission. Colonialism can impose temporary administrations. It can alter borders, institutions, and economies. It can leave deep linguistic and cultural effects. But it cannot necessarily determine what a people will preserve in its collective memory or transmit to future generations. Accordingly, starving Yemenis into submission, collectively attributing responsibility to them for the foreign relationships of political or armed groups, or attempting to reshape their political and cultural identity against their will cannot provide a legitimate or sustainable path to political settlement. It may prolong suffering. It may increase the human cost. It may delay a settlement. But it cannot make subjugation permanent. Ultimately, Yemeni identity—including its historical memory, language, culture, religious traditions, social structures, and collective heritage—may prove more enduring than any political arrangement imposed from outside. The proper response of international law is therefore not to wait for history to prove this point again, but to prevent civilian suffering from being used as a political instrument and to ensure accountability for anyone proven to have used starvation, collective punishment, or violence against civilians to achieve political or sectarian objectives.
Page | 12 Legal Basis for Demanding an Immediate Cessation of Violations and Protection of the Yemeni Population The continuation of any military, economic, or political policy that results in the starvation of civilians, deprives them of necessities essential to life, imposes collective punishment, or seeks to politically subjugate a population by destroying the conditions necessary for its survival engages a range of obligations under international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and international criminal law. Accordingly, the demand that such conduct cease is not merely a political or moral appeal. It is grounded in specific legal rules, including both treaty obligations and customary international law. 1. Prohibition of Starvation of Civilians as a Method of Warfare Rule 53 of customary international humanitarian law provides that the use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare is prohibited. This rule applies in both international and non-international armed conflicts. It is closely connected to the protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population and the obligation to permit humanitarian relief. Accordingly, food, water, medicine, and other essential means of survival may not lawfully be used as weapons to compel a population to submit politically or militarily. 2. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions Article 54 prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and prohibits attacking, destroying, removing, or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, including foodstuffs, agricultural areas, livestock, drinking-water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, when the purpose is to deprive civilians of their survival value. Saudi Arabia is a party to Additional Protocol I, having acceded to it in 1987. Saudi Arabia is also a party to Additional Protocol II concerning non-international armed conflicts. 3. The Customary Prohibition of Starvation Applies Regardless of Disputes Over the Classification of the Conflict Even where a party disputes the applicability of a particular treaty provision based on the classification of the conflict, this does not eliminate the customary prohibition against starving civilians. The International Committee of the Red Cross recognizes the prohibition against starvation of civilians as a rule of customary international humanitarian law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Accordingly, the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian assistance or destruction of objects indispensable to survival may constitute part of a violation of this prohibition.
Page | 13 4. Prohibition of Collective Punishment Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits collective penalties and measures of intimidation or terrorism against protected persons, as well as reprisals against protected persons and their property. International humanitarian law therefore does not permit an entire civilian population to be punished for the conduct of an armed group, government, or political organization over which those civilians have no control. Previous reporting by the United Nations Group of Eminent International and Regional Experts on Yemen addressed the effects of restrictions imposed by the Saudi-led coalition, including the effective naval blockade and closure of Sana'a International Airport. The experts concluded in relation to certain measures that they may amount to collective punishment prohibited under international humanitarian law, depending on the circumstances and applicable legal analysis. 5. Protection of Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Population Customary international humanitarian law provides special protection to objects indispensable to the survival of civilians. These include, in particular: • food; • crops and agricultural land; • livestock; • drinking water; • water installations; • irrigation systems; and • other resources indispensable to civilian survival. Such objects may not be destroyed, removed, or rendered useless for the specific purpose of depriving civilians of them. 6. Obligation to Facilitate Humanitarian Relief It is not sufficient merely to refrain from attacking civilians. Parties must also comply with applicable rules concerning humanitarian relief for populations in need. International humanitarian law protects the provision of humanitarian assistance, including food, medicine, medical equipment, and other essential supplies. Accordingly, unlawful obstacles to the rapid and safe delivery of humanitarian assistance must be removed.
Page | 14 7. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Saudi Arabia is a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948. The Convention defines genocide as certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such. One of the specified acts is deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction in whole or in part. The Convention also establishes obligations to prevent and punish genocide. However, it is essential to emphasize that genocide requires proof of specific intent. Severe deprivation, mass civilian deaths, or starvation alone do not automatically establish genocide. The evidence must demonstrate the legally required intent to destroy the protected group, in whole or in part. Accordingly, the appropriate legal demand is for an independent investigation into whether the relevant conduct and intent satisfy the elements of genocide, rather than asserting that genocide has already been judicially established. 8. Crimes Against Humanity If conduct forms part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of that attack, it may give rise to potential responsibility for crimes against humanity where the remaining legal elements are satisfied. The Rome Statute includes, among crimes against humanity, acts such as murder, extermination, persecution, and other inhumane acts when the requisite elements are established. The legal assessment must therefore examine not merely isolated incidents but also whether alleged abuses form part of a broader policy or pattern. 9. War Crimes Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, deliberately depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival, and unlawfully obstructing humanitarian assistance may constitute war crimes when the applicable legal elements are satisfied. The International Committee of the Red Cross recognizes starvation of civilians as a conduct that may constitute a war crime and links the destruction of objects indispensable to survival and obstruction of humanitarian relief to this prohibition.
Page | 15 10. Individual and Command Responsibility Responsibility should not be limited to states or governments as abstract entities. Where international crimes are established, investigations should determine: 1. Who issued the orders? 2. Who planned the policy? 3. Who implemented it? 4. Who knew about the violations and continued them? 5. Who had the authority and ability to prevent them but failed to do so? 6. Who financed, facilitated, encouraged, or otherwise contributed to the conduct? This is particularly important where alleged violations arise from a continuing policy rather than an isolated incident. 11. The Duty to Respect and Ensure Respect for International Humanitarian Law Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions establishes the obligation to respect and ensure respect for the Conventions. The obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law has also been recognized as having customary-law significance. States therefore cannot simply disregard serious violations occurring in the context of armed conflict. 12. The Yemeni People's Right to Self-Determination The Charter of the United Nations recognizes the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and identifies the promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination among the purposes of the United Nations. Accordingly, efforts to politically subjugate the Yemeni population through coercive means must also be examined in light of the Yemeni people's right to determine their political future free from unlawful external coercion. This does not mean that every foreign alliance or instance of external assistance automatically violates international law. The specific facts establishing unlawful coercive intervention must be demonstrated. 13. Religious or Political Affiliation Cannot Justify Collective Punishment Even if it is established that an armed group in Yemen has political or military relations with Iran or another foreign state, this does not transform Yemeni civilians into lawful targets merely because of their identity, residence, religion, or political affiliation. The principles of distinction, proportionality, precautions, the prohibition of collective punishment, the prohibition of starvation, and the protection of civilians remain applicable. Consequently, the claim that some Yemenis have relationships with a foreign state cannot, by itself, provide a lawful basis for starving or collectively depriving Yemen's civilian population.
Page | 16 14. Protection of Cultural and Religious Identity International law does not regard civilian populations merely as objects that can legitimately be reshaped through economic coercion. Human rights law protects cultural and religious rights, and persecution on religious or ethnic grounds may, when the other legal elements are satisfied, constitute an international crime. Any policy that deliberately targets a religious or cultural group as such should therefore be independently investigated. 15. Immediate Legal Demands On the basis of the foregoing, the following demands should be directed to Saudi Arabia and to all parties participating in the conflict: First: Immediately cease any use of starvation or deprivation of food, water, medicine, or other essentials as a military or political instrument. Second: End any unlawful blockade or restriction that deprives civilians of necessities essential to survival. Third: Guarantee rapid, safe, and non-discriminatory humanitarian access in accordance with international humanitarian law. Fourth: Refrain from collective punishment and from measures targeting civilians because of the conduct of an armed group or political authority over which they have no control. Fifth: Protect water, food, agricultural, medical, and other facilities indispensable to civilian survival. Sixth: Cease any policy that targets civilians because of their religious, sectarian, ethnic, or political identity. Seventh: Establish independent and transparent investigations into allegations concerning starvation, blockade, deliberate deprivation of humanitarian assistance, and violations against civilians. Eighth: Identify the individual responsibility of anyone who ordered, implemented, facilitated, encouraged, or otherwise contributed to conduct amounting to international crimes, including command responsibility where its legal elements are satisfied. Ninth: Preserve all evidence relating to military, political, and economic decisions, military orders, communications, blockade records, and decisions concerning authorization or denial of humanitarian assistance. Tenth: Refer conduct satisfying the elements of international crimes to competent judicial mechanisms, including appropriate international or national mechanisms possessing jurisdiction. Eleventh: Do not use sectarian identity or foreign political relationships as a pretext for collective punishment of Yemeni civilians. Twelfth: Respect the Yemeni people's right to determine their political future without subjecting the civilian population to military or economic coercion designed to force acceptance of a particular political arrangement.
Page | 17 Legal Conclusion International law does not grant any state the right to starve a population until it changes its political position. Nor does it grant a regional power the right to reshape another people's identity through force, nor does it make civilians collectively responsible for the foreign relationships of a political or armed organization. If evidence establishes that starvation, blockade, or deprivation of essential goods has been deliberately used to subjugate civilians, the matter goes beyond political disagreement and may engage legal responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and, depending on the evidence, intent, and applicable legal elements, potentially war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. The demand is therefore not merely that “the suffering should stop” as a political appeal. Rather, the conduct producing starvation, collective punishment, and deliberate deprivation of humanitarian assistance must cease because it is subject to binding limitations under international law that cannot be nullified by continuing the same policy indefinitely. Time does not turn a crime into a right. The duration of a blockade does not make it lawful. The number of victims does not make civilians responsible for the conflict. Economic pressure does not grant an external power the right to determine the identity or political future of another people. Accordingly, the legal demand is for the immediate cessation of any conduct constituting starvation, collective punishment, or unlawful obstruction of humanitarian relief; the protection of civilians; independent investigation; preservation of evidence; accountability for those responsible for proven international crimes; and respect for the Yemeni people's right to determine their own political and cultural future.