Rules of Engagement

Gary D. Solis

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511757839.015

This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core

13 - Rules of Engagement

from LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: BATTLEFIELD ISSUES

Gary D. Solis

Show author details

Gary D. Solis: Affiliation:
United States Military Academy

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

At Bunker Hill, in 1775, William Prescott (or was it Israel Putnam?) is said to have ordered his Continental rebels, “Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes.” Because the order specified the circumstances in which deadly force could be employed by infantry forces it could be considered an early rule of engagement. (Except it is too clear and too brief to qualify.)

Rules of engagement (ROE) are not law of armed conflict (LOAC) or international humanitarian law (IHL). They are not mentioned in the Geneva Conventions or Additional Protocols, and they are not the subject of a multinational treaty bearing on armed conflict. Nor are they are domestic law. They are military directives, heavy with acronyms. ROE are examined here because they play a significant role in executing the state's LOAC/IHL obligations and because they are frequently cited when LOAC/IHL violations are alleged. Most states' armed forces have some version of ROE to guide their combatants. (The record of UN peace-keeping forces and their ROE implementation has been troubled, making a “strong [UN] response to provocation close to impossible.”) Although not LOAC/IHL, ROE violations are typically punished through the state's military code. In U.S. practice, violations are prosecuted as violations of a lawful general order, a common Uniform Code of Military Justice offense.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Law of Armed Conflict
International Humanitarian Law in War
, pp. 490 - 518

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757839.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dallaire, Lt. Gen. Roméo, Shake Hands With the Devil (New York: Carroll & Graff, 2003), 99, 229, 233, 264

Zinni, Gen. Tony, in Clancy, Tom with Zinni, Gen. Tony, Battle Ready (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 2004), 251

Werrell, Kenneth P., “Across the Yalu: Rules of Engagement and the Communist Air Sanctuary During the Korean War,” 72–2 J. of Military History (April 2008), 451–75, 458Google Scholar

Luttrell, Marcus, Lone Survivor (New York: Little, Brown, 2007), 37–8

Martins, Major Mark S., “Rules of Engagement for Land Forces: A Matter of Training, Not Lawyering,” 143 Military L. Rev. (Winter 1994), 3–160, 35Google Scholar

Parks, W. Hays, “Righting the Rules of Engagement,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (May 1989), 83, 84Google Scholar

Peers, Lt. Gen. W.R., The My Lai Inquiry (New York: Norton, 1979), 230

Timberg, Robert, The Nightingale's Song (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 152

Belknap, Michal R., The Vietnam War on Trial (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2002), 49

Palmer, Jr. Gen. Bruce, The 25 Year War (New York: DaCapo Press, 1984), 125

Sorley, Lewis, Thunderbolt (Washington: Brassey's, 1998), 341

Sennott, Maj. Daniel J., “Interpreting Recent Changes to the Standing Rules for the Use of Force,” The Army Lawyer (Nov. 2007), 52 Google Scholar

Grunawalt, Richard J., “The JCS Standing Rules of Engagement: A Judge Advocate's Primer,” Air Force L. Rev. (1997), 245, 247Google Scholar

Anderson, Maj. Marie and Zukauskas, Emily, eds., Operational Law Handbook, 2008 (Charlottesville, VA: Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School, 2008), 79

Ricks, Thomas E. and Vogel, Steve, “USS Cole Guards Told Not To Fire First Shot,” Washington Post, Nov. 14, 2000, A1 Google Scholar

Myers, Steven Lee, “Inquiry Faults the Cole's Captain and Crew,” NY Times, Dec. 9, 2000, A6 Google Scholar

Hammel, Eric, The Root (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985), 292–4

Spence, Cmdr. Mike, “Lessons for Combined Rules of Engagement,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (Oct. 2000), 56–60Google Scholar

Hersh, Seymour M., “King's Ransom: How Vulnerable Are the Saudi Royals,” New Yorker, Sept. 22, 2001, 36 Google Scholar

Ricks, Thomas E., “Target Approval Delays Cost Air Force Key Hits,” Washington Post, Nov. 18, 2001, A1 Google Scholar

Grant, Rebecca, “An Air War Like No Other,” Air Force, Nov. 2002, 31, 34Google Scholar

Reynolds, Col. Nicholas E., Basrah, Baghdad, and Beyond (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2005), 157–8

Chivers, C.J., “Perfect Killing Method, but Clear Targets Are Few,” NY Times, Nov. 22, 2006, A1 Google Scholar

,Center for Law And Military Operations (CLAMO), “Rules of Engagement: What Are They and Where Do They Come From?” Marine Corps Gazette (April 2002), 59, 60Google Scholar

,CLAMO, “‘ROE’ Rhymes With ‘We’,” Marine Corps Gazette (Sept. 2002), 78 Google Scholar

Fick, Nathaniel, One Bullet Away (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 182

Bowden, Mark, Black Hawk Down (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1999), 18

Garraway, Charles, “The ‘War on Terror’: Do the Rules Need Changing?” 3 Chatham House (2006)Google Scholar

Hansen, Maj. Michelle A., “Preventing the Emasculation of Warfare: Halting the Expansion of Human Rights Law into Armed Conflict,” 194 Military L. Rev. (Winter 2007), 1, 47Google Scholar

Zucchino, David, Thunder Run (New York: Grove Press, 2004), 43

Roach, Capt. Ashley, “Rules of Engagement,” Naval War College Rev. (Jan.–Feb., 1983), 50 Google Scholar

Zielbauer, Paul, “At Marine's Hearing, Testament to Violence,” NY Times, Sept. 1, 2007, A4 Google Scholar

Stafford, Lt. Col. W.A., “How to Keep Military Personnel from Going to Jail for Doing the Right Thing: Jurisdiction, ROE & the Rules of Deadly Force,” The Army Lawyer (Nov. 2000), 1, 5Google Scholar

Helms, Nathaniel R., My Men Are My Heroes (Des Moines, IA: Meredith Books, 2007), 184

Baarda, Th.A. and Verweij, D.E.M., Military Ethics: A Dutch Approach (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006), 85

,The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center & School, Operational Law Handbook, 2006 (Charlottesville, VA: JAGC&S, 2006), 92

Kittichaisaree, Kriangsak, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 264

Eflein, Maj. Dawn R., “A Case Study of Rules of Engagement in Joint Operations: The Air Force Shootdown of Army Helicopters in Operation Provide Comfort,” Air Force L. Rev. (1998), 33 Google Scholar

Bumiller, Elisabeth, “From A Carrier, Another View of America's Air War in Afghanistan,” NY Times, Feb. 24, 2009, A6 Google Scholar

Folsom, Maj. Seth W.B., The Highway War (Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2006), 56

Lorenz, Col. Frederick M., “Law and Anarchy in Somalia,” 23 Parameters (1993–1994), 39 Google Scholar

Martins, Maj. Mark S., “Rules of Engagement For Land Forces: A Matter of Training, Not Lawyering,” 143 Military L. Rev. (1994), 64 Google Scholar

Pantano, Capt. Ilario, Warlord (New York: Threshold Editions, 2006), 315

Gordon, Michael R. and Trainor, Lt. Gen. Bernard E., Cobra II (New York: Pantheon Books, 2006), 226

Sanchez, Lt. Gen. Ricardo, Wiser in Battle (New York: Harper Collins, 2008), 125

Rowe, Peter, “The Rules of Engagement in Occupied Territory: Should They Be Published?” 8–2 Melbourne J. of Int'l L. (2007), 327, 331Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.