This article examines UN Charter Article 2(4) which prohibits the use of force against territorial integrity and political independence of states, analyzed through the lens of the ongoing Yemen conflict. The research explores how the proxy war between Iran and the Saudi Arabia-led coalition, including US involvement, challenges traditional interpretations of international law. The study investigates whether modern neo-liberal frameworks have undermined the effectiveness of Article 2(4) in preventing state-sponsored conflicts.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”[footnoteRef:1] The use of force issue is one that should receive more attention in international law, especially with regard to the situation in Yemen today. States from Saudi Arabia to Iran to Syria to the US and Yemen itself are all members of the United Nations and should abide by Article 2(4), yet the conflict in Yemen persists and is often said to be a proxy war between Iran and a Saudi Arabia coalition of forces that includes the US.[footnoteRef:2] This dissertation proposes to assess Article 2(4) of the UN Charter in the light of the proxy war in Yemen, and to explain the legal problems that surround the conflict. As UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokeswoman, Ravina Shamdasani has pointed out, the conflict is far from resolution as “there have been 839 air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition so far in January alone, compared to 1,074 over the course of last year,” resulting in the deaths of many civilians.[footnoteRef:3] Since 9/11, the need to justify the use of force against sovereign states has waned, with states adopting an attitude that the justification is self-evident. This in effect has led to the ongoing proxy wars in multiple parts of the world. What should have been a period of peace following the end of WW2 turned into a continuation of conflict, with various states vying for power and undermining the sovereignty of other states. It is important to understand the use of force issue as well as the role of liberalism in the modern understanding of Article 2(4). Liberalism is the framework for explaining “how human reason, progress, freedom, and individual rights can contribute to peace and security.”[footnoteRef:4] But in the West, or more specifically in the US, a neo-liberal framework has been applied, and it has Fascist overtones, as Finnemore points out.[footnoteRef:5] Is the new view of Article 2(4) informed by a new Fascism? [1: UN Charter, Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-1] [2: D Esfandiary and Tabatabai, A. ‘Yemen: An opportunity for Iran–Saudi Dialogue?’ [2016] 39 The Washington Quarterly 2,155] [3: TRT World, ‘UN Expresses Deep Concern over Escalating Conflict in Yemen’ [2022] https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/un-expresses-deep-concern-over-escalating-conflict-in-yemen-53788] [4: Thomas Walker and David Rousseau, ‘Liberalism: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment’, in Cavelty and Balzacq (eds), Routledge Handbook of Security Studies, 22.] [5: Martha Finnemore, ‘Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity’ ]2009] World Politics 61, 59.]
You’re 91% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.