CHALLENGES AND DILEMMAS IN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY LAW

S. government as the key to fighting terrorism in the Middle East. In lieu of the ousting, Saudi Arabia through a concerted effort with other nations began an anti-Houthis campaign that saw them carry out a series of bombings, from the early days of the year 2015. The aim of these bombings were to resist the Houthis and push them back. However, the bombings became a subject of numerous debates regarding their legality, tactfulness, morality, ethicality, and the necessity of such attacks because of the mass civilian casualties that had been reported. S. Dollars from the Saudi Arabia government to train their military forces on three key areas that included avoiding of casualty of civilians, the law related to conflict that is armed, and the control and command of human rights.

The announcement also included the mentioning that the government of Saudi Arabia had assured Washington that they would make prevention of civilian casualty their priority while in Yemen5. However, the assurance was not in practice as minimal evidence suggested compliance because the United Nations Panel of Experts cited eight strikes that were separate in Yemen and which targeted civilians in the latter half of the year 2017. The final occurrence in the build up to this discussion was the activities of the U. Margalit 4 believes that agreeing or even merely tolerating any regime that is meting inhuman treatment on its people, regardless of the reason is rotten compromise. This is because such regimes are the foundation of erosion of morality within the society.

While morality refers to relations among humans that should exist by virtue of nothing else other than us being humans, ethics is limited to the kind of relations that exist among people who share special relationships. Thus, morality is the core of humanity and human existence. Anything that goes contrary to our morality is rotten and a foundation for societal decadence. What compromise in the United States government making? According to the theory of compromise in4 book, compromise can take two forms. The first form is anemic while the second form is the sanguine type. An example is given from the bible that illustrates anemic type of compromise. Abraham needs to purchase a plot where he would bury his wife Sarah.

The plot is owned by Ephron. A case of rotten compromise The aforementioned compromise by the United States government is a clear case of rotten compromise. This is because it supports an action that in its entirety comprises of cruel, savage, and barbaric to the innocent civilians Yemen. The grounds for such rot include: a) It is illegal The most fundamental role of the law is to preserve and protect the moral fabric and the freedom of the society. In doing so, it facilitates the preservation of the rights and any liberties that each individual has within the society from being violated3. The implication of any violation therefore is the breaking of the moral fabric of our society, which forms the basis of us being human as discussed in the earlier paragraphs, thus rotten compromise.

According to Oona Hathaway5, the government of Yemen made a request to the government of Saudi Arabia and the coalition that is being led by this country for support in defending themselves against the rebels. This is in line with the self-defense provision. However, for a sale to be sanctioned, there is need to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the self-defense is of utmost necessity and that it is proportional to the kind of threat that the government is exposed to5. However, according to the report released by the American Bar Association in the year 2017, there was a failure to prove that the assault against the rebel forces by the coalition led by Saudi Arabia was legitimate on self-defense, absolutely necessary, or even proportional to the threat that was present.

As such, the U. government violated the act. The third fundamental act that comes into play is the Presidential Policy Directive 27. This directive sets up a policy for transferring arms for the purposes of defending human rights, aiding counterterrorism and democratization, and facilitating counter proliferation5. It prohibits and orders for retransfer of such arms when they are used to conduct gross violation of human rights and human rights abuses. By financing such acts through the transfer of weapons that are worth millions of dollars to Saudi Arabia to be used by Saudi Arabia in operations that cause mass casualties against innocent civilians, the government violates the provisions of this directive4. Retrieved from Human Rights Watch: https://www. hrw. org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/saudi-arabia 2.