| dc.description.abstract | Since 2015, Yemen has been at civil war. In a major offensive against the Houthis, the Saudi-led Coalition have conducted their war in Yemen from afar, using airstrikes. Civilians have been at the receiving end of these attacks, some of which have caused civilian casualties among the local population, especially in Sana'a. The aim of this thesis is first to explore how non-Western countries such as the Saudi-led Coalition are following suit in using the same remote warfare practices and legitimising discourses as Western advanced militaries. Second, to understand how these legitimised airstrikes figure in the family victims' imaginations and how they interpret and contest them. Using the Critical Discourse Analytic lens, this thesis analyses the dynamics between discourse, power, and violence. Therein, it demonstrates the role of the Coalition discourse in the violent conflict used to legitimize an intervention and become dominant. This thesis then systematically reviews these types of discourses. Therefore, a theoretical framework built around the concept of framing with a particular focus on Benford and Snow's collective action frame through the prognostic, diagnostic and motivational lenses is used. This research demonstrates how the Coalition discourses are framed and have contributed to the construction of the organisation of power that has legitimised violent action at large. It shows what meaning is given to these types of intervention: who is to blame, what is the solution, and why a country is calling to arms, through the concepts and language they use to create their interpretation. It is explained by using three discourses supporting the Coalition's mission as an example of distant warfare and further justify and permit contesting interpretations: the precision discourse, the self/collective discourse, and the humanitarianism discourse. 14 interviews were conducted, alongside document analysis to collect data. Through insight into the civilian contestation in remote warfare, this thesis adds to our understanding of local interpretations of remote warfare and the power dynamics that determine what is considered true - what is legitimate in the setting of distant violence. | |
