What does roe mean military

MP2 overrides MP1. No war? MP1 overrides MP2. Employ these decision-making criteria to justify war:. Legitimate Authority. Publicly Declared. Reasonable Chance of Success. Right Intention. Last Resort. Who not? Innocent or Prisoner. Unintentional Harm? Principle of Double Effect applies. A Practical Rule. Double Effect is:. Military must minimize bad effects even if doing so entails risk to. Weapon limits, minimize friendly casualties and where possible enemy casualties.

Given this understanding of the moral principles grounding particular ROE, what lessons should we draw from the two examples cited at the beginning of this paper--Kosovo and the terrorist attack on the USS Cole? It seems to me that there are at least five. At a minimum, commanders seek to achieve within their units consistent moral behavior given the three varying and sometimes competing factors of 1 the functional requirements of military service requirements of duty, discipline, and winning, for example ; 2 the values embodied by the society which they have sworn to protect [within the U.

This consistency requirement is hard enough. But ideally military commanders also strive for comprehensive moral judgments in wartime, judgments which are the absolutely best ones to be had given the harsh demands of the particular circumstance of combat. This goal requires another factor, character, which I cannot address within the limits of this paper.

But as I will try to show, making those judgments, even in their best form, is not impossible. Yet such judgments do require adjustments to the model presented in Figure 1. Those adjustments are necessary for ensuring, at a minimum, consistency within the sometimes competing demands found within the U. Professional Ethic--or any other Professional Military Ethic--at work today.

ROE developed and executed under combat conditions radically underdetermine proper action by commanders and subordinates. I will address this possibility next in Part Three. I will provide a corrective to the Two Levels of War and Justice model in Part Four, which will make it easier to justify consistently this obligation of force protection within the overall PME--by making it explicit. This requirement is especially germane given the current threat against U.

Finally, 5 the importance of proper training in the execution of ROE should not be underestimated. The clearest, most concise, and most consistent ROE may be formulated by a Herculean commander and precisely communicated to subordinates.

But unless forces are able to execute them well and instinctively the Kosovo example and not fail as perhaps illustrated by the USS Cole example , the best ROE as law will fail in execution. Commanders, on the other hand, do not just craft better or worse law in terms of regulations, standing procedures, operations orders, commands, and ROE. Such a three-fold command responsibility has important implications in terms of how properly to conceive Jus In Bello , as I shall show.

Let us now turn to the role U. Constitutional law should play in crafting U. The standard charge is that U. In peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or in carrying the battle to terrorists on their home turf in a quasi-law enforcement role, some claim soldiers are hamstrung by more restrictive ROE than those employed by the FBI. Our soldiers, so the argument continues, thus often find themselves at greater risk abroad in the execution of their responsibilities than they should be.

Perhaps the time has come to apply what has been learned in U. The suggestion is also that other states may similarly benefit from such analysis.

But is such a charge within U. Are U. There is no doubt that domestic law enforcement, peacekeeping, and peace-enforcement operations share similarities. But one obvious difference is that FBI agents deal with criminals and suspected criminals within the U. In such high stake arenas, soldiers, marines, and special operations forces may be serving collectively to set or enforce the conditions of peace, not to arrest known or suspected criminals.

Or they may also be involved in law enforcement operations. Thus ROE in the military context might be, justifiably or not, more restrictive in the case of peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations than those sanctioned by U. Or they could be justifiably less restrictive in the case of certain law enforcement or counter-terrorism operations. In the more restrictive military ROE situations, ROE may perhaps improperly entail additional risk to combatants if combatants are called upon to perform law-enforcement or counter-terrorism duties in addition to their normal peacekeeping or peace enforcement duties.

But such an element of additional risk is one important factor among many that political authorities must consider in making the policy decisions to engage in peace operations requiring such restrictive ROE.

Therefore, criticisms of more restrictive ROE in such circumstances seems misplaced if directed at the military leadership tasked to develop ROE consonant with the political goals sought. Instead, criticism, if called for, should be directed at the policy decisions directing involvement of U.

To allay such criticism, policy decision-makers as part of their deliberative strategy should acknowledge, and approve, any degree of risk required of U. This requirement will serve as my first revision of the Two Levels of War and Justice model Figure 2. In the event U. Forces abroad should ever have their right to self-defense restricted more than the baseline placed on other federal authorities like the FBI within the U.

But if that right to self-defense is restricted to a greater degree because of the political sensitivity of the peace mission or counter-terrorism operation, then such a restriction on the right of self-defense must be a deliberate political decision, made by proper political authority.

I have used his schematic of articulate consistency in the application of relevant moral principle and the paradigm of the Herculean judge to support my first revision to Just War Theory. Yet Dworkin holds true to the view that arguments of principle generally trump arguments of policy. Have I not argued for just the opposite with the first revision to my model of the Two Levels of War and Justice?

But this possibility of policy trumping over principle is inherent to the Two Levels of War and Justice model as I have portrayed it--and of the understanding of the moral grounds for the office of soldier implied within that model. When, in extreme emergency, policymakers revise or override the law of war, they may also be overriding MP1 by directing the intentional harm of innocents. In war, absolute moral principles do not exist.

Within the U. PME, such trumping of moral principle is legitimate only if proper Constitutional means are followed. A viable war and justice model should seek to explicate clearly when and how those principles may justifiably be overridden. The most important point to note in this regard is that decisions to override moral principle can only be made in the case of the U.

What legal theory best justifies the content of what that self-defense baseline should look like? A pragmatic approach of the sort advocated by Thomas Grey Brint and Weaver , and played out within the U. The laboratory of U. This pragmatic approach for determining the content of the right to self-defense fits well with any conception of Just War Theory, too, provided certain beliefs are not rejected out of hand in the face of the familiar instrumentalist side of pragmatism.

General Principle: The deadly force policy is not to be construed to require Agents to assume unreasonable risks. Deadly force may be used when it is necessary , that is, when there is probable cause to believe that a person poses an imminent danger of death or serious injury to Agents or others, and there appears to be no safe alternative means to accomplishing the law enforcement purpose. Deadly force is not permitted for the sole purpose of preventing escape—i. When feasible, verbal warnings should precede the use of deadly force.

Warning shots are prohibited. When deadly force is justified, Agents may continue its application until the threat that prompted the use is over. When deadly force is justified, attempts to shoot to cause minor injury are unlikely to achieve the intended purpose of bringing an imminent danger to a timely halt.

Person is armed under circumstances indicating intent to use the weapon against Agents or others;. Person is attempting to gain access to weapon , under circumstances indicating intent to use the weapon against Agents or others;.

Person is armed and attempting to gain tactical advantage of cover;. Person has ability , and is demonstrating intent to incapacitate Agent;. Person is escaping the scene of a violent confrontation during which he inflicted or attempted infliction of death or serious physical injury. If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.

An objectively reasonable officer knows the inherent dangers of her job and the inherent limitations in perceiving and responding to a threat.

Specifically, she is aware that she has little time to react, and that action beats reaction. She also understands she has limited means at her disposal to meet the threat, given the physiology of the human body and wound ballistics, and she also realizes the limited control she has over the situation.

At a minimum, it does not require certitude on the part of the agent concerning the nature and level of the threat to her. She then has the discretion, and is well-trained to determine, whether to use deadly force next or not. What is the nature of this discretion in self-defense on the part of the FBI Agent, and by extension, U. My claim is that the principle of self-defense in such a general form can never fully determine results because of its underdetermining character.

Only the threatened Agent is in a position to judge, at the moment of decision, whether imminent danger exists and whether deadly force is therefore justified in the particular context. But if innocents are close at hand and in danger from the contemplated use of deadly force, then MP1 can determine and must limit what level of force is employed. The FBI agent cannot use any means in such cases to protect herself if by so doing she puts other innocent lives in danger. Only when a reasonable Agent finds herself in imminent danger from a suspect and her actions would not place other innocent lives at risk would she possess discretion in the strong sense described by Dworkin Dworkin My suggestion is that this same standard for the use of deadly force ought to be employed by U.

Forces comparably trained, who may be involved in peace operations involving similar law enforcement responsibilities. I also believe the analysis so far justifies an even stronger position: that if the Department Of Justice standard for use of deadly force cannot be incorporated within military ROE governing peace operations abroad, then the decision to deploy U.

Forces abroad cannot be justly made. I now summarize my conclusions of this part, pertinent only to considerations involving deployment of U. Forces abroad in peace operations or counter-terrorism operations. My standard Two Levels of War and Justice model Figure 1 still applies at the higher end of the use-of-military-force spectrum. The use of deadly force standards employed by our FBI at home ought to be the same standard employed abroad by our military—-when involved in similar law enforcement operations.

Any deviation from that standard must be a factor considered by political authorities, of equal weight to the traditional seven Ad Bellum criteria. This requirement to justify publicly Due Risk is in principle no different. And it is even more important, for reasons argued in Part One, in peace operations. Therefore, the inviolable individual right to self-defense moral principle MP4 must be included and considered in any consistent moral judgment made by military leaders and subordinates within Jus In Bello at this lower end of the use-of-force spectrum as well.

Command Responsibility in Peace Operations. Not only does he find himself obligated to enforce and create morally consistent ROE, he must also train his soldiers to be able to execute that law as well as to protect them in the execution of those duties.

James M. That Due Risk criterion applied to decisions made by policymakers for deploying military forces in support of peace or counter-terrorist operations. But it seems dubious, to say the least, that anyone can ever exchange, let alone lose, a supposedly natural right like the right to life.

No combatant lives are to be wasted frivolously or wantonly. In fairness to Walzer, he could say that yes, soldiers still have a right to life. But the most important point to make is that MP1, never to harm intentionally innocents, is more fundamental than MP2.

A laminated card with the following text was distributed to all U. Army and Marine personnel in Iraq. PID is a reasonable certainty that the proposed target is a legitimate military target. If no PID, contact your next higher commander for decision. Minimize collateral damage. Stay updated. Corporate Social Responsiblity. Investor Relations. Review a Brill Book. Reference Works. Primary source collections. Open Access Content. Contact us.

Sales contacts. Publishing contacts. Social Media Overview. Terms and Conditions. Privacy Statement. Login to my Brill account Create Brill Account. Author: Camilla Guldahl Cooper. Login via Institution. Purchase instant access PDF download and unlimited online access :. Add to Cart. PDF Preview. Save Cite Email this content Share link with colleague or librarian You can email a link to this page to a colleague or librarian:. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.

Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.