Discussion Questions- Case #1 by

2025-03-06 21:11:58 UTC

Diplomatic pressure and talks and possibly eventually trade embargo’s and tariffs - Katie

The legal community can pressure the GCC coalition to ensure legal compliance by bringing up the issue in UN general assembly to provide ground for international talks that could hold the coalition accountable. -basmalh

2025-03-06 21:12:30 UTC

Question 1:

2025-03-06 21:13:07 UTC

I believe that accountability first and foremost is important. This was a tragedy that should be shown on a public stage. In terms of measures to ensure legal compliance something that could be done is using motivation/incentive to help stop this conflict via financial, etc. - Daisy

2025-03-06 21:13:31 UTC

The international community can push the GCC coalition to comply with international law through diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and arms restrictions.

-Ezinwanne Onyebuchi

I feel like it may have aligned if the retaliatory air strikes targeted only the houthis’ headquarters and avoided civilian casualties as they are rebels after all. - Maram

2025-03-06 21:13:47 UTC

question one

2025-03-06 21:13:47 UTC

continue diplomatic discussion while promoting accountability and if that doesn’t work, economic/political sanctions and tariffs would be an effective way to put pressure

-momna

Owen Roy

2025-03-06 21:14:29 UTC

the international world can ensure legal compliance through economic sanctions: implement target santions against military leaders and anyone responsible.

Trade restrictions that halt arm sales and military air to GCC. Continue to prevent and stop arms sales through any means as well as sanctioning individuals and states that break international laws.

Question 2

2025-03-06 21:14:38 UTC

The international community can ensure legal compliance by threatening to create economic sanctions or threatening to shut down borders if they do not comply. - Chloe Millar

One measure that the international community can take to ensure legal compliance is for proper enforcement of laws guiding the use of force. The two principles guiding the use of force according to international law, are military necessity and proportionality. In these cases, these principles were defied and ignored which speaks to the weak enforcement of international law. In this case, they cited military defense as the justification for the airstrikes on Yemen. By Oluwadunbarin Akinwande.

2025-03-06 21:14:57 UTC

Dylan W

2025-03-06 21:15:11 UTC

I feel that the international community can be more strict on imposed consequences and state intervention of more politically and economically developed nations that are impacted by the coalition. Specifically, how Saudi Arabia is one of the major exports of oil to first world countries, if they chose to not comply with coalition agreements with partner countries these export countries can temporarily stop there agreements for trade.

2025-03-06 21:15:16 UTC

The international community should establish measures for supporting compliance with international law particularly for human rights along with humanitarian law and conflict resolution initiatives. Reem

2025-03-06 21:15:31 UTC

The international community can impose targeted sanctions on leaders, restrict arms supplies, and increase diplomatic pressure through negotiations.

-Ezinwanne Onyebuchi

Question 3

2025-03-06 21:17:27 UTC

While Saudi had the right to defend themselves against the Houthi's threat - they must not use excessive means. They did have the necessity to use military force due to the constant threats, but the means in which they used this force, via a bombing, could be seen as excessive as it killed a lot of civilians.

Keira French

2025-03-06 21:17:36 UTC

The international community can ensure legal compliance by the Houthis in the Yemen conflict through a combination of diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions, and legal accountability mechanisms. The UN and key regional actors should enforce ceasefire agreements and humanitarian access through negotiations while imposing sanctions on individuals and entities violating international law. Strengthening the role of the International Criminal Court or a specialized tribunal could deter war crimes by holding perpetrators accountable. Additionally, leveraging regional powers like Iran—alleged to support the Houthis—through diplomatic engagement could pressure the group into compliance. Coordinated international efforts are essential to enforcing human rights norms and restoring stability in Yemen.

Madeline McCallum

Owen Roy

2025-03-06 21:17:40 UTC

A push towards military action and any means through economic sanctions. However it is a tough fight and a more realistic and effective way of doing things is promoting a more humanitarian approach to supporting the civilians through any aid

Question 1- Ethan

2025-03-06 21:17:57 UTC

The international community has tools like diplomacy and economic sanctions so that they can really pressure the compliance and ensure the legal obligations are met. They obviously do this from a State to Stare basis, and with international economic sanctions, that is a very good (or bad depending on how you look at it) way to enforce this compliance.

Question 1

mustaph8 — 2025-03-06 21:18:08 UTC

The international community can ensure GCC coalition compliance through economic sanctions, arms embargoes, independent war crime investigations, diplomatic pressure, and stricter UN oversight. Limiting military aid from allies like the US and UK and enforcing humanitarian protections would also help.

Aaliyah

question two

2025-03-06 21:18:24 UTC

impose sanctions, take part in more diplomatic talks, utilizing legal institutions like the ICJ/ICC

2025-03-06 21:19:04 UTC

I believe that a response based in force was NECESSARY by Saudi Arabia however I do not believe that the Saudi airstrikes are proportional due to their extensive military power and targeting of civilian areas - Katie

2025-03-06 21:20:10 UTC

while it does seem like the necessity principle was met for Saudi’s response towards the Houthis, I do not think the proportionality principle was met because of the targeting of civilian areas and infrastructure

Maryam A

2025-03-06 21:20:15 UTC

The international community can ensure legal compliance by naming and shaming. If they care about their reputation in the international community this may deter them from violent actions. However, an issue arises if they do not care about their reputation. For instance, many states do not care about the reputation they have because they prioritize their power desire over other factors.

Mia Petrilli

It's clear that international pressure and any type of sanctions or force have proven ineffective therefore, diplomatic talks with other actors such as Iran and leaders of the group are the best option to mediate the conflict- basmalh

2025-03-06 21:20:55 UTC

2025-03-06 21:21:33 UTC

I think the international community should implement sanctions, arm embargos and build grounds to maybe a diplomatic solutions to enforce accountability and get the Houthis to comply to international law. Camila Silva

mustaph8 — 2025-03-06 21:22:52 UTC

I feel like they should hold external backers like Iran accountable and enforcing diplomatic pressure.

Aaliyah

Owen Roy Q3

2025-03-06 21:23:05 UTC

Saudi response has been very negative in the effect it’s has on civilian casualties which fails to meet the standard the principles of proportionality and necessity, breaking international law.

There force was excessive and is seen as an unnecessary use of force within the context under the principles

2025-03-06 21:23:54 UTC

saudi has the right to protect and defend itself against Houthis so necessity is there but the proportionality in regard to how they responded with force do not seem proportional w loss of life and infrastructure

-momna

Principle of Military Necessity

2025-03-06 21:24:01 UTC

The principle of military necessity applies in this case because the Saudi used this as a justification to counter the threats of the Houthis.The principle of military necessity explicitly states that force is only lawful if necessary for a legitimate military objective. They did have the right to defend themselves from these threats but not in the excesive manner it was done. This is considering the loss of lives suffered by the Yemen people. In this case, the use of force did not have to employed , and it further caused severe unimaginable impacts on the citizens of Yemen. By Oluwadunbarin Akinwande

Proportionality and Necessity

2025-03-06 21:24:17 UTC

The Saudi’s response exceeded the proportionality test as it harmed civilians and medical infrastructures The response must have been proportional to the states objectives however the act cannot be used as “retribution or shock and awe tactic.” While necessity principle was met, the force should only go as far as deterring the “instant and overwhelming threat” in question.

-Isabella

2025-03-06 21:24:31 UTC

It depends. Under international law, retaliatory airstrikes must follow the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. If they target military objectives while minimizing harm to civilians, they may be lawful. However, if they cause excessive civilian casualties or damage, they could violate international humanitarian law.

-Ezinwanne Onyebuchi

Under article 51, Saudi used the right to defend themselves since they had an armed attack. This allows them to state their military necessity. In terms of proportionality, civilian deaths are an unnecessary loss especially when medical facilities are targeted. Daniela

2025-03-06 21:26:30 UTC

2025-03-06 21:27:54 UTC

While the reaponse may have been necessary, given the humanitarian crisis of the time as indicated by the "arms dealers dine while Yemen starves" banners shown in slides, but the response was not proportional to military necessity, given the amount of civilian casulaties and infrastructure damage- Nevaeh. M

mustaph8 — 2025-03-06 21:29:37 UTC

The Saudis had all right to protect themselves, but the airstrikes were unnecessary, and they could have prevented those causalities. the principle of proportions says that military actions should avoid excessive harm which Saudi did not.

-Aaliyah

Owen Roy Q4

2025-03-06 21:30:35 UTC

Once again just like question 3

The air strikes really didn’t target specific people and knew and understood the casualties that would be involved.

Within the case of the of the Saudi-led coalition. the human rights watch indicates that many strikes disproportionally impacted civilians, historical; and residential areas. they knew the consequences of acting upon the air strikes. These airstrikes don’t align with international laws. International laws does not like to protect extreme action At least in the very tight parameters here.

mustaph8 — 2025-03-06 21:31:42 UTC

International law permits military action only if it follows proportionality and distinction—meaning civilian harm must not be excessive compared to the military advantage gained. However, Saudi-led airstrikes have caused mass civilian casualties, famine, and destroyed essential infrastructure, making it difficult to justify their humanitarian impact as legally compliant.

-Aaliyah

2025-03-06 21:31:46 UTC

although there is necessity for a response, the damage done by the retaliatory air strikes doesn’t align with the proportionality factor in international law

2025-03-06 21:32:50 UTC

This heavily depends on the structure of international law. Humanitarian law is of grave concern because innocent civilians should never have to suffer due to circumstances they are unable to control. However, due to the concept of proportionality and how broadly it is defined it can be justified. Nevertheless, if a state knows that civilians may have to suffer they then need to find measures that affect the least amount of civilians as possible.

Mia Petrilli

2025-03-06 21:33:12 UTC

Under the law of use of force it could be said that since the response was to attack when they themselves were attacked they did have a right to defend themselves and although it’s discouraged to hit civilians collateral damage is accepted to certain extent

-Christopher Gutierrez

Humanitarian impact of air strikes resulted in civilians not being able to get medicine for easily curable illnesses. Physical strikes, plus the after effects, plus the inability to get humanitarian aid means that it was not lawful. Daniela

2025-03-06 21:34:12 UTC

2025-03-06 21:34:52 UTC

By itself, collateral damage by itself doesn’t violate international law. The UN acknowledges that it’s bound to happen at some point in any conflict. But specifically targeting civilian populations or overly affecting civilian populations with your operations is often found to violate international law. The blockage of aid into a country with a famine that affects around 50% of the country (and mostly children) likely violates international law on the use of force/humanitarian efforts. The blockage of aid into a country with 20% of the population being displaced likely violates international law. You get the point. Dax Josin.