CYIL 2010

MARTIN FAIX CYIL 1 ȍ2010Ȏ to be used in a particular operation is defined in the operation’s mandate, but the specific rules for the use of force issued in written form for the deployed troops (and thus implementing the mandate) are the Rules of Engagement (ROE). This set of rules provides operational guidance on how to accomplish the mission within the constraints that international law imposes on the use of force in order to ensure compliance with international law. This fact demonstrates the immense practical importance of ROE for the daily reality of the international community. With the changing context of the use of force, the development, implementation and use of ROE becomes a challenging task. This seems to be a good reason to present some basic thoughts on ROE and some of the related current issues, which is the main goal of this contribution. “Death by rules of engagement” was the title of a news story 1 concerning the death of an American soldier caused by the alleged “inverted morality and insanity of U.S. military rules of engagement”. This is only one of the stories in which the term “Rules of Engagement” (ROE) appears. More importantly, this complex issue has become the subject of harsh criticism from politicians, NGOs, the press or even individuals, just like in the case mentioned. This may not be all that surprising, considering the continual involvement of Europe in matters of international peace and security, the corresponding rise in the amount of global public scrutiny that armed interventions and peace-keeping operations are subjected to, and the instantaneous and ongoing media coverage of conflicts and crisis situations (the CNN-effect). Additionally, ROE are now being developed and used not only by the military but also by police forces, in maritime operations and even for private military contractors, 2 the involvement of which in peace operations is steadily increasing. At the same time, the “enemies” are also aware of the sensitivity of the ROE issue, which in some cases leads to the purposeful exploitation of ROE, as a recent statement of a US Army First Lieutenant fighting in Afghanistan demonstrates: “We’re facing a thinking enemy, they adapt to our tactics in order to counter them. They are very cynically taking advantage of our rules of engagement. We’ve seen them multiple times, fleeing the area with women and children as human shields. Their spotters frequently have kids on the backs of their mopeds to deter us from firing. ” 3 The concern that enemy forces could take advantage of knowing the limits and constraints encompassed in ROE is also the reason why states and organizations usually do not disclose them. 4 Considering the foregoing 1 See the full story by D. West “Death by rules of engagement” of 17August 2007, available at: http:// townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2007/08/17/death_by_rules_of_engagement. 2 B. F. Klappe, International Peace Operations. In D. Fleck, The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law . Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp. 635-675 [656] (in the following only, “B. F. Klappe, International Peace Operations”). 3 For the whole story, see LCpl. Clarc, W. James, Fighting the Taliban With Brute Force. Military.com [online]. 02.02.2010, [cit. 2010-05-28]. Available at: . 4 This may be true for wartime, as disclosure of the ROE would run counter to the elementary principles of combat: deception and surprise (B. F. Klappe, International Peace Operations , p. 661). In peace sup-

134