Abstract:
The armed conflict in Yemen has been ongoing since 2014 with no end in sight. The
attempts to reach a political solution and mediation efforts by the United Nations Security
Council and member states failed. The complexity of this war, including the involvement
of competing interests and claims of the regional and international, state, and non-state
actors, explain this failure. The power and role of the United Nations Security Council in
legitimizing certain discourses rather than others push each member to present its own
narrative and press towards legitimizing it. Using a content analysis approach, this paper
first maps the different narratives by the Security Council’s permanent five members (P-
5), relevant Arab states, Yemen, and United Nation Secretary General Special Envoy for
Yemen during UNSC meetings on Yemen war between January 2014 to August 2021.
The paper then uses framing and securitization theories to analyze the themes and claims
adopted in these competing state narratives. This analysis reveals how in the case of the
Yemen war, narratives presented at the Security Council meetings attempted to legitimize
a certain discourse and actions and delegitimize another through presenting the situation
as a security threat. The dominant Western and Gulf side framed the war as part of Iran’s
regional project and labeled the Houthis as “terrorists,” blaming them entirely rather than
the other side as the responsible for the humanitarian crisis. The paper concludes that
UNSC would only be able to implement the protection of civilians in armed conflict
agenda through ending impunity and ensuring accountability of all parties involved
directly or indirectly in this war. There are crucial steps and reforms that should be done,
including but not limited to having the ability to end impunity on all states equally, even
the P5, whenever evidence show their involvement in international laws violations.
