Yemeni Civilians File Lawsuit Against Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics for Enabling War Crimes

On April 12, 2023, Yemeni civilians filed a lawsuit against Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics—three of the five largest US defense contractors—alleging that the companies supported war crimes by selling weapons to the Saudi Arabia and UAE-led coalition forces during the Yemen civil war. The lawsuit represented one of the first attempts by conflict victims to hold US defense contractors legally accountable for their weapons’ documented use in systematic violations of international humanitarian law. Plaintiffs included survivors and families of victims from attacks including the August 2018 school bus bombing that killed 40 children, multiple funeral and wedding attacks, hospital strikes, and attacks on civilian infrastructure. The lawsuit alleged that the contractors knew or should have known that their weapons were being used to commit war crimes, yet continued sales driven by profit motives while making minimal efforts to prevent civilian casualties or demand coalition accountability. The legal action highlighted the accountability gap where contractors profited from weapons documented in atrocities yet faced no criminal or civil liability under existing legal frameworks.

Allegations Against Raytheon and Contractors

The lawsuit alleged that Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics bore responsibility for Yemen civilian casualties through their weapons sales to the Saudi-led coalition despite extensive documentation of war crimes. Plaintiffs argued the contractors knew their weapons were being used in unlawful attacks—human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International had publicly documented at least 21 apparently unlawful attacks involving US weapons by 2023, with many specifically identifying Raytheon Paveway bombs and Lockheed munitions. Despite this knowledge, the contractors continued pursuing Saudi contracts worth billions of dollars, lobbying US officials to approve additional arms sales, and providing training and technical support that enabled coalition operations. The lawsuit contended that profit motives overrode any contractor concerns about weapons misuse, with companies prioritizing Saudi revenues despite clear evidence that their products were being used to kill civilians in systematic violations of international law. Plaintiffs sought both compensatory damages for individual victims and injunctive relief potentially restricting future arms sales.

Legal Challenges and Contractor Immunity

The lawsuit faced substantial legal obstacles due to protections defense contractors enjoy under US law. Government contractor immunity doctrines potentially shield companies from liability when weapons are sold through official US government arms sale processes approved by the State Department and Defense Department. Contractors could argue they simply fulfilled government-approved contracts and bore no independent responsibility for how purchasers employed weapons. Additionally, forum non conveniens arguments might support dismissing the case on grounds that US courts were inappropriate venues for adjudicating foreign conflicts. These legal protections reflected policy choices that insulated defense contractors from accountability for weapons end-use, prioritizing arms export promotion over civilian protection. The lawsuit’s legal challenges illustrated systemic problems: even when contractors’ weapons were documented in war crimes spanning eight years, victims faced nearly insurmountable barriers to legal accountability, while contractors continued profiting with effective immunity.

Symbol of Accountability Gap

Even if the lawsuit ultimately failed on legal grounds, it served as powerful symbol of the accountability gap in defense contracting where companies profited from documented atrocities yet faced no legal consequences. The named plaintiffs included individuals who had lost children in the school bus attack, family members killed in funeral bombings, and survivors of attacks on civilian infrastructure—people whose tragedies were directly linked to Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics weapons through human rights investigations. Their willingness to pursue legal action despite long odds demonstrated that contractor claims of innocence—that they merely supplied weapons and bore no responsibility for use—rang hollow to those who buried family members killed by those weapons. The lawsuit challenged the moral logic of defense contractor impunity: if contractors profited from weapons sales, should they not also bear some responsibility when those weapons killed civilians in systematic violations of international law?

Significance

The April 12, 2023 lawsuit by Yemeni civilians against Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics represented victims’ attempt to penetrate the legal immunity that had protected defense contractors from accountability despite eight years of documented weapons use in Yemen war crimes. The lawsuit’s allegations—that contractors knew their weapons were being used unlawfully yet continued sales driven by profit—accurately described contractor conduct as documented in congressional investigations, human rights reports, and financial disclosures showing companies earned tens of billions from Saudi sales while their weapons killed thousands of civilians. However, legal protections built into US law meant the lawsuit faced nearly insurmountable obstacles: government contractor immunity doctrines, State Department arms sale approval processes that shifted responsibility to government officials, and jurisdictional barriers all potentially blocked victim accountability claims. The lawsuit revealed a fundamental injustice in defense contracting: Raytheon and other contractors could earn billions from weapons documented in systematic war crimes spanning nearly a decade, yet victims had virtually no legal recourse to hold companies accountable or seek compensation for suffering caused by contractor products. The legal action demonstrated that accountability for defense contractor complicity in war crimes would require either unlikely judicial breakthroughs overcoming contractor immunity or political changes creating new liability frameworks—neither of which appeared likely given contractor political influence. For Raytheon specifically, the lawsuit represented negative publicity but posed minimal legal or financial threat, validating the company’s apparent calculation that Yemen weapons sales were worth pursuing despite atrocity documentation since legal protections ensured contractors faced no meaningful accountability. The lawsuit’s filing—even if ultimately unsuccessful—served as moral witness that thousands of Yemeni civilians killed or injured by US weapons represented not abstractions but human beings with names, families, and communities, and that contractor claims to bear no responsibility for weapons use constituted moral evasion rather than legal truth.