Makkah and Madinah under threat: Why Houthi missile strikes demand international legal accountability

From the report

The attempted missile strikes toward Makkah and Madinah are not merely another episode in the escalating conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s Houthi movement. They raise a far more serious question: how can international law hold an armed group accountable when its military operations place Islam’s holiest cities at foreseeable risk? The interception of two ballistic missiles on October 24, 2026, followed by reports of falling debris in Makkah, Jeddah, Taif and Rabigh, underscores the gravity of the threat. A subsequent drone interception near Makkah further heightened concerns over the security of the holy cities.

The Houthis have denied deliberately targeting the sacred cities, insisting that their operations were directed at oil infrastructure and military installations. But such a defence does not settle the legal question. Under international humanitarian law, responsibility cannot be assessed solely by examining an attacker’s declared intentions. The nature of the weapon, the choice of target, the surrounding circumstances and the foreseeable consequences must also be considered. An armed group cannot automatically escape responsibility simply by claiming that civilian or religious sites were not its intended targets.

The prohibition against indiscriminate attacks is a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law. Article 51 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibits attacks that cannot be directed at a specific military objective or whose effects cannot be limited as required by international law. The prohibition is also recognised as customary international humanitarian law and applies to parties to armed conflicts, including non-state armed groups. Consequently, the use of long-range ballistic missiles in circumstances where their effects cannot be adequately controlled raises serious legal concerns