Since 2015, a Saudi-led coalition, including the UAE, has been conducting military operations against Houthi rebels in Yemen. This coalition has been accused by United Nations investigators of war crimes, including bombing civilian areas such as residential neighborhoods, markets, funerals, weddings, jails, boats, and medical facilities, causing thousands of civilian deaths. Moreover, it has also been accused of imposing blockades on Yemeni ports and airspace, severely restricting food, fuel, and humanitarian aid, which has contributed to widespread famine and a dire humanitarian crisis. The coalition has also been accused of imposing blockades on Yemeni ports and airspace, severely restricting food, fuel, and humanitarian aid, which has contributed to widespread famine and a dire humanitarian crisis. This blockade and the resulting starvation have been described as acts amounting to genocide or extermination.
From Mistakes to Massacres
The Saudi-led coalition’s airstrikes in Yemen have drawn repeated condemnation for violating international humanitarian law (IHL). Particularly the principles of distinction, which requires avoiding civilian targets, and proportionality, which mandates that military advantage must outweigh civilian harm. Evidence gathered over the years points to a consistent pattern of civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction, raising serious legal and ethical concerns.
One of the most egregious examples of the Saudi-led coalition’s disregard for civilian life occurred in January 2022, when three separate airstrikes killed 80 civilians and injured 156 others, striking a prison in Saada, a telecommunications facility, and a gas station in Hodeidah—locations where eyewitnesses reported no military presence. Notably, this is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of indiscriminate targeting that has marked the coalition’s conduct throughout the conflict. By 2017, a staggering 60% of the 16,700 documented civilian casualties were linked to coalition airstrikes, a statistic that strongly suggests systemic violations of international humanitarian law, particularly the principles of distinction and proportionality. For example, the 2018 bombing of a school bus in Dhahyan, which killed 26 children, was deemed an “apparent war crime” by Human Rights Watch. Likewise, the 2016 attack on a funeral hall in Sanaa claimed 140 civilian lives, an atrocity the coalition later admitted was a “mistake.” Collectively, these incidents underscore a troubling pattern in which civilian infrastructure and gatherings have been repeatedly misidentified or disregarded as legitimate military targets, raising serious concerns over the coalition’s targeting protocols and accountability mechanisms.
Fuel, Famine, and Failed Justifications
The Saudi-led coalition’s justification for maintaining its blockade of Yemen, citing the need to prevent Iranian arms smuggling to Houthi rebels, is critically undermined by independent UN findings and humanitarian analyses, particularly from the UN Verification and Inspection Mechanism (UNVIM), which found no weapons in 90% of inspected vessels bound for Houthi-controlled ports like Hodeidah. Despite this, the coalition continues to restrict vital imports of food and fuel, exacerbating Yemen’s humanitarian crisis, where 90% of necessities are imported and where, by 2020, over 131,000 deaths were linked to preventable causes such as famine, lack of clean water, and inadequate healthcare. Organizations like the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) describe the blockade as “torture in slow motion,” highlighting how fuel restrictions cripple hospitals and water systems. While the coalition claims Houthis use civilian areas and ports for military purposes, UN inspections consistently find no evidence of systematic port militarization, and the coalition’s own investigations into civilian airstrike casualties lack transparency and accountability.
The blockade, defended through UN Security Council Resolution 2216 (2015), has instead resulted in severe civilian harm, with diesel imports to Houthi areas falling by 75% between 2015 and 2017, effectively paralyzing essential infrastructure. Legal experts and human rights groups argue that the blockade constitutes collective punishment and starvation as a method of warfare, violating international humanitarian law and potentially amounting to war crimes and torture under the UN Convention Against Torture. Thus, the coalition’s claims are not supported by credible evidence, and the blockade functions primarily as economic warfare rather than arms control, making international accountability mechanisms such as ICC investigations and arms embargoes urgently necessary to halt further violations and prevent mass suffering.
Legally, the Saudi-led coalition claims it targets legitimate military sites and justifies the blockade by citing intercepted Iranian arms like Russian Kornets and Chinese rifles. However, this justification becomes legally and ethically problematic when measured against the principles of IHL, particularly the principle of proportionality. According to a 2018 United Nations report, coalition airstrikes frequently failed to demonstrate a clear effort to minimize civilian harm, with documented attacks on markets, funerals, and other non-military gatherings. The use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas raises serious concerns about indiscriminate and disproportionate force. Under IHL, even if a target has military value, the attack must not cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the anticipated military advantage. In this context, the military value of the alleged targets is vastly outweighed by the consistent and severe civilian toll. The coalition’s ongoing blockade worsens the crisis, restricting fuel and aid, which leads to a blatant international humanitarian law violation. Thus, ignoring these violations risks normalizing impunity in war, eroding civilian protections, and weakening the very foundations of international humanitarian law for future conflicts.
Human Rights Rhetoric vs. Reality
The ongoing civilian casualties in Yemen are the result of both the coalition’s conduct and the enabling support provided by international actors like the United States and the United Kingdom. Despite training programs aimed at reducing civilian harm, coalition airstrikes continue to cause significant civilian deaths and injuries. Since 2015, over 19,200 civilians, including more than 2,300 children, have been killed or maimed by coalition airstrikes alone. The coalition has been documented systematically targeting civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, markets, and water stations.
International supporters, namely the US and UK, have supplied weapons, including MK-82 bombs and precision-guided munitions, as well as military intelligence and logistical support. This support has enabled the coalition to sustain its air campaign, which has repeatedly violated IHL. The continuation of civilian casualties despite training and oversight suggests a degree of complicity by these Western states in potential war crimes. For example, in 2024 and early 2025, the US and UK accounted for a growing share of civilian casualties from airstrikes, with a 71% increase in civilian harm in the first three months of 2025 alone.
This dual responsibility coalition conduct and enabling external support raise serious questions about the credibility of Western human rights rhetoric globally. On one hand, these countries publicly advocate for human rights and international law. On the other, their arms sales and military assistance contribute directly to violations on the ground. This contradiction undermines their moral authority and weakens global efforts to enforce accountability. The failure to halt arms sales or condition support on strict compliance with IHL damages trust in Western commitments to human rights and international justice.
In conclusion, the Saudi-led coalition’s military campaign and blockade in Yemen have not only inflicted severe civilian suffering and violated international humanitarian law but have also destabilized Yemen’s future. Politically, the prolonged conflict has deepened fragmentation and empowered rival factions like the Southern Transitional Council, undermining prospects for national unity. The humanitarian crisis marked by famine, disease, and destruction has fueled radicalization, creating conditions ripe for extremist recruitment. Economically, the blockade has crippled infrastructure, delaying reconstruction and development for decades. To reverse this trajectory, immediate steps must include lifting the blockade, halting airstrikes, and enforcing international accountability to enable sustainable peace and recovery.
From Words to Action
The Saudi-led coalition’s actions in Yemen Indiscriminate airstrikes and a sustained blockade have resulted in widespread violations of IHL, with civilian infrastructure repeatedly targeted and the blockade exacerbating famine and disease. To address this, international legal mechanisms must be enforced: the International Criminal Court should investigate potential war crimes under Article 8 of the Rome Statute, while the UN Security Council must impose an arms embargo in accordance with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Ongoing arms transfers by the U.S. and U.K. violate the Arms Trade Treaty and must be halted. The blockade, amounting to collective punishment under Article 33 of the Geneva Conventions, must also be lifted to restore critical humanitarian access. On the diplomatic and humanitarian front, donor states must fulfill the UN’s $4.3 billion aid appeal, while regional actors such as the GCC and Oman should leverage the 2023 Saudi-Iran détente to initiate sustained peace negotiations with the Houthis. Civil society organizations like Mwatana must be supported in documenting abuses and pursuing justice, while reparations in line with UN principles should be offered to victims—funded through redirected arms sales profits. Achieving long-term peace and stability in Yemen requires ending impunity, restoring humanitarian aid, and fostering inclusive political reconstruction to counter further radicalization and state collapse.
