Israel used this as a justification to massacre more than 30,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip within five months, with thousands more estimated to have died trapped under rubble.
And now the US is using it to justify airstrikes against Houthi fighters in Yemen.
The right of sovereign states to act in self-defense under international law has come under the spotlight in recent months, with four simultaneous conflicts and humanitarian crises in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen threatening full-scale war. There is. middle east.
But this week, U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said U.S.-led airstrikes against Houthi targets amounted to “self-defense” in retaliation for Red Sea attacks on commercial ships that the Houthis say have ties to Israel. He cast doubt on the US's claim to do so.
The Iranian-backed Houthi group, based in Yemen, launched a naval offensive last year in solidarity with Gaza residents. These include the November 19 attack in which Houthi special forces traveling by helicopter hijacked not a US vessel but a Japanese-operated cargo ship in the Red Sea suspected of having ties to an Israeli businessman. was also included.
Since then, the Houthis are believed to have carried out nearly 60 attacks on commercial and military ships flying the flags of various countries in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.
The US-led offensive against the Houthis, who control much of Yemen, including the capital Sanaa, began on January 11, with intensive attacks on Houthi storage facilities, radar and air defense systems.
Since last month, more than 230 targets in Yemen have been attacked by US-led operations aimed at reducing the Houthi military strength.
Why does the US claim these attacks amount to “self-defense”?
The United States, which reclassified the Houthis as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) organization on January 17, maintains that attacks on American commercial ships and warships in the Red Sea amount to attacks on the United States itself. Biden criticized the Houthis' actions, calling them “outrageous.”
While some attacks by Houthi fighters have indeed targeted U.S. ships, not all have targeted them.
After the US launched its military operation last month, John Kirby, currently the White House national security and communications adviser, insisted the US “has no intention of escalating this.” The Houthis have a choice, and there is still time to make the right choice to end their reckless attacks. ”
What did Senator Kaine say?
Kaine, a Democrat who was Hillary Clinton's running mate in the 2016 US presidential election, expressed doubts about the US' claim of self-defense at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this Tuesday.
He argued that President Biden's legal justification for the US attack on Yemen's Houthis is “ridiculous.”
Referring to the U.S. Constitution, Kaine said, “Article II, self-defense, has a narrow mission to protect U.S. shipping, both military and commercial.” “Self-defense in Article II means being able to protect U.S. military personnel, being able to protect U.S. military assets, and possibly protecting U.S. commercial vessels. But never defending the commercial vessels of other countries. , not even close to that. That's not self-defense.”
He added: “I think it's ridiculous to call it self-defense if you're protecting another country's commercial ships.''
What is Article 2? Is it relevant here?
Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president has the power to take military action in “self-defense” without Congressional approval.
But the Virginia senator said Biden said the U.S. retaliatory airstrikes against targets in Yemen constituted an act of self-defense, especially given the fact that the Houthi attacks were primarily against international rather than American nationals. He was just one of several committee members to question the validity of the claim. ,container.
U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut also appeared to reject Biden's “self-defense” justification, saying:
“We have multiple attacks, we have a limited number of boots on the ground, we have casualties, we have prisoners of war. Why does this not require traditional congressional authorization of war?” It's difficult for me to understand.''
Murphy said the move is a “military action” and requires Congressional approval “not only to legitimize existing operations, but also to prevent unauthorized operations.”
So can the United States be considered acting in self-defense?
Neve Gordon, a professor of international law and human rights at Queen Mary University of London, said the United States should also consider the principles of the United Nations Charter in its response.
Gordon said Article 51 of the U.N. Charter “suggests that if a U.S.-flagged vessel, whether commercial or military, is attacked, the United States may respond in self-defense.”
But he added: “The United States cannot protect commercial ships carrying other flags. [US] attack [on Houthi targets] Attacks by the Houthis against non-US vessels violate the United Nations Charter. ”
What other constraints does the President of the United States have on military action?
In addition to the U.S. Constitution, the president's use of military force is also constrained by the so-called War Powers Resolution.
This is a check on presidential power passed by Congress in 1973 after the Vietnam War.
Importantly, the resolution calls on the sitting U.S. president to cease hostilities within 60 to 90 days unless supported by Congress.
Referring to the War Powers Resolution, a 2019 Congressional Research Service report stated: “Article 4(a)(1) requires the President to report to Congress the introduction of United States forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. If such report is submitted; or If required, Section 5(b) requires that the use of force must end within 60 to 90 days, unless Congress authorizes the use of force or extends the period. ”
So if U.S. airstrikes against Yemen's Houthis are not considered “self-defense,” Mr. Biden has until April 11 to win Congressional support for an offensive campaign.
