Although Ansar Allah group (the Houthis) is widely considered de facto authority in the ongoing conflict in Yemen, the general frame through which the International Humanitarian Law (laws of war) views the conflict has not changed. Hence, the ongoing conflict in Yemen is not considered an international armed conflict, based on provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Pursuant to International Humanitarian Law, “non-international” armed conflict is characterized by one party to the conflict is a non-State armed group, so that the conflict as a whole is not between “states”. According to provisions of the International Humanitarian Law, the ongoing armed in Yemen is not an international armed conflict.
Although the above-mentioned facts might not answer questions about the current and real trajectory of military actions which are often characterized by the International Humanitarian Law as “hostilities” regardless of the legitimacy of such actions, it is well-known that Ansar Allah group (the Houthis) has not provided enough ground to treat it as a state in the ongoing conflict, according to the International Law. However, this does not mean that Ansar Allah group (the Houthis), or any other party to the conflict, is exempt of its responsibility for any violations against the International Humanitarian Law or the International Human Rights Law.
The participation of many countries in the conflict in Yemen does not make it an “international” armed conflict for the same reason mentioned above.
However, the fact that the conflict in Yemen is not an international armed conflict doesn’t exempt the parties to the conflict from complying with the rules of the International Humanitarian Law, especially the common Article No. 3 of the Geneva Conventions and the customary rules of International Humanitarian Law. These Articles and Rules provide for a humane and non-discriminatory treatment for every person in captivity and care for injured persons during hostilities; including enemy’s combatants and injured, without discrimination. Moreover, the strict compliance with the rules of the humanitarian international law, in armed conflicts (international or otherwise), doesn’t require or presume reciprocity. In other words, the parties to the conflict are expected to comply with these rules, regardless of whether the other party complied with them or not.
Basically, the only difference between international and non-international armed conflicts is how combatants or soldiers captured during hostilities are dealt with. The term ‘prisoner of war’ indicates a special status which is provided by the Third Geneva Convention for the enemy combatants who are captured during international armed conflicts only.
At any case, the International Human Rights Law remains applicable during the ongoing armed conflict in Yemen. Parties that assume responsibility over territories, areas or sites have to bear the full responsibility of protecting the rights of individuals in the areas under its control without discrimination including political rights.
The basic premise of the International Humanitarian Law is the protection of civilians against the ravages of armed conflicts by all parties to the conflict. It is also based on obliging all parties to target only military targets including military objects and personnel who are actively involved in military hostilities, and on the necessity of categorically distinguishing between military and civilian targets during attacks and the need to avoid civilian objects such as buildings houses, apartments, places of worship, hospitals, schools, etc., which are prohibited unless they are used for military purposes.