The recent US-led air strikes on Houthi fighters in Yemen, justified as self-defence by President Biden, have sparked controversy and debate in the international community. The US claims that retaliatory strikes against Houthi targets in response to attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea are necessary for self-defence, despite these vessels not all being American. Critics, including US Senator Tim Kaine, have questioned the legality of these attacks, with Kaine calling the justification “laughable” and suggesting that defending non-American commercial ships does not fall under the realm of self-defence.
The US Constitution grants the president authority to take military action in self-defence without congressional approval under Article 2. However, the War Powers Resolution acts as a check on presidential power, requiring the termination of hostilities within a certain timeframe unless approved by Congress.
Furthermore, international law, specifically Article 51 of the UN Charter, allows for self-defence in response to attacks on US-flagged ships, but not on ships flying other flags. Therefore, the US strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen in response to attacks on non-American vessels could be seen as a violation of the UN Charter.
As the debate continues, it remains to be seen whether President Biden will secure congressional support for the ongoing campaign of air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen or face the need to terminate the operation within a set timeframe. The issue highlights the complex legal and ethical considerations involved in justifying military action in the name of self-defence.
Source
Photo credit www.aljazeera.com