Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Complex BattlespacesThe Law of Armed Conflict and the Dynamics of Modern Warfare$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Winston S. Williams and Christopher M. Ford

Print publication date: 2019

Print ISBN-13: 9780190915360

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: December 2018

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190915360.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 15 June 2019

Personal Self-Defense and the Standing Rules of Engagement

Personal Self-Defense and the Standing Rules of Engagement

Chapter:
(p.109) 4 Personal Self-Defense and the Standing Rules of Engagement
Source:
Complex Battlespaces
Author(s):

Christopher M. Ford

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780190915360.003.0004

The U.S. military Standing Rules of Engagement (SROE) restrict the use of force in armed conflict to either self-defense or “mission-specific” rules of engagement, which refer to the use of force against members of enemy armed forces or organized armed groups that have been “declared hostile.” This bifurcation of authority works well in an international armed conflict, where the enemy force is uniformed and easily distinguished. In these circumstances, the overwhelming number of engagements are against identified hostile forces. In many non-international armed conflicts, however, combatants actively attempt to camouflage their status, and U.S. forces find themselves engaging enemy forces under a self-defense framework. This creates problems. Consider, for example, a situation where three individuals of unknown affiliation launch an attack against a U.S. military convoy in Afghanistan. After a short engagement, the attackers get in a van and speed away from the attack site. The U.S. convoy is disabled, but an unmanned aerial vehicle tracks the van as it retreats into the desert. Thirty minutes later an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter arrives on scene above the still-retreating van. Can the Apache attack the vehicle? The van is retreating and poses no threat, thus self-defense principles would not allow for the use of force, despite the fact that the occupants are clearly directly participating in hostilities. This chapter addresses three questions: Why are the SROE drafted in this manner? What is the basis in the law for the SROE’s approach to self-defense? What are the problems presented by this approach?

Keywords:   (SROE), (ROE), self-defense, imminent, necessity, proportionality, (IHL), criminal law, armed conflict

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .