1) In particular, I would recommend doing some reading around how to write a PhD in order to get a sense of what may be needed under each heading on the application. For example, the literature review needs to offer some overview of the current academic ideas on this topic and where your work would sit in comparison. In addition, you would need to specify your research questions and be clearer about your methods (summarising secondary data would not be sufficient for a PhD so you would need to emphasise how you are generating primary data and how your work offers a unique contribution). 2)it might also be worth thinking about what exactly you are looking at and developing a more focused research question (at the moment there is no actual question) and how you might ‘test’ that question. It is also not clear what your methodology will be apart from some mention of qualitative research – this needs to be tightened up. 3)the proposal is too broad and lacks a clear research focus, incorporating too many issues into its aims. I am afraid I am unable to supervise your research 4)Further, the focus of the project needs to be tightened up significantly. At the moment it is very broad and vague. What is your core analytical question? What conceptual or analytical literatures will you draw upon and contribute to? The function of a literature review is, as much as anything, to situate your question within broader theoretical or conceptual frames. In the thesis you will need to go beyond description to analyse the situation. Why is it important? What can we learn? What does it tell us about how the UN and other actors operate? You will need to accurately analyse the role of all actors in contributing to the humanitarian crisis and broader situation. With regard to methodology, to what extent do you think it likely you will be able to access to all of the actors you intend to talk with? What are the risks associated with trying to talk with some of these people? How will your thesis be affected if you cannot gain access to some of them? I would suggest you try to tackle some of these issues – in particular focusing your question and thinking about broader framings – in a revised proposal to be submitted. 5)here are some comments on your proposal should you want to pursue it further: The thesis seems to be about two separate issues: Firstly, the role of the UN in the Yemen conflict and, secondly, the fight against “terrorism” by the Saudi-led coalition. My sense is that you would need to make a choice between the two. Personally, I find the former question about the UN more interesting. The second question about “anti-terrorism” is more of a question of military studies or war studies than political science. Whichever question you finally decide to research, you would need to explain its wider significance. A PhD is meant to make a contribution to political science/international relations, not just describe one case study. For instance, what can the Yemeni case tell us about UN interventions (short of peacekeeping) in civil wars? You would need to consult the wider international relations literature about this and explain how your research project contributes to these debates. More in-depth analysis of the different actors. You currently seem to reduce the conflict as one between a Saudi-led coalition and terrorists. This needs to be disaggregated. The various actors in the civil war – from Houthis to southern movement and all other militias, parties etc. – play complex roles in the web that is Yemeni politics. So do Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iran as the main international powers backing different sides. Your own positionality: No one comes to their research from a perfect outsiders’ position. You would need to explain: How does this influence your analysis? What opportunities and challenges does this pose? This is partly a question of explaining your perspective, and also what you can and cannot do. For instance, it may facilitate access to Arab allies interviewees but you would find it difficult to gain the trust of other actors in the conflict. Methodology: You mention interviews. What would you get out of those interviews and how would this help you answer your research question?