Further Memorandum from the Ministry of
Defence
RULES OF
ENGAGEMENT
Given the interest that the committee has shown
in the relationship between the Bill and Rules of Engagement,
this memorandum sets out in general terms what Rules of Engagement
are, and are not, for.
There is a well established UK Service Doctrine
on Rules of Engagement. It was updated in June 2004 and took full
account of lessons learned in all recent operations. UK ROE doctrine
is therefore up to date and has been operationally tested in recent
war and high tempo peacekeeping operations. There is detailed
guidance on the relationship between Rules of Engagement (ROE)
and legal rights and obligations. The principles here are taught
to service personnel throughout their careers and are well understood.
This guidance is reflected for specific operations in UK Mission
Directives and their ROE profiles.
ROE provide a set of parameters to inform Commanders
of the limits of constraint imposed, or freedom permitted, when
carrying out their assigned tasks. They cover a great deal more
than just the use of force, and deal with all aspects of the force
posture which senior Commanders want deployed UK forces to adopt.
They may cover, for instance, the disposition of forces, the use
of particular assets and even permissions to board and search
vessels. They will cover all of these issues in the maritime,
land and air environments, and the deployment of assets and capabilities
that have a connection with the use of force. Rules of Engagement
are not law. They are tailored to the specific mission and are
drawn up using specialist military expertise.
The development of ROE will, at all stages,
take into account the rights and obligations placed upon all our
Forces by national and international law, whilst also reflecting
the extant national policy in terms of indicating the required
force posture. Legal advice is invariably built into the process
of the development of ROE.
Although ROE are not the law or legislation,
a soldier who complies with his ROE and any associated guidance,
in good faith, will not stray outside the law. Where a Guidance
Card alone is issued on the use of armed force by individual service
personnel it will make clear that lethal force may only be used
in circumstances where an imminent threat to life exists. Assessing
whether such a threat exists in a given set of circumstances requires
a separate judgment which the Rules cannot address. That position
would remain even if Rules of Engagement had the force of law,
as was proposed by the withdrawn amendment.
Whether a specific ROE profile is necessary
for any given operation will depend upon its scale and character.
Profiles are not always necessary. Hence in OP FRESCO (providing
cover for striking fire services in the UK) and deployments to
Sri Lanka and other nations following the Tsunami, personnel were
not armed and an ROE profile for the operation was not produced.
Equally ROE do not exist only for specific operations. The Royal
Navy require standing ROE for the activities of their warships
and submarines when at sea.
The decision to arm is taken by military commanders
at the highest level. It will depend upon the mission, the threat
and usually the agreement of the host state. Whenever UK forces
are armed, they will have guidance on when they may use armed
force.
Even if personnel are to be armed, their mission
may not require an ROE profile. Where that is the case, use of
force by armed UK personnel will be governed by the guidance contained
in what we call Guidance Card Alpha (A). This too is drafted so
as to be consistent with the law. It informs the assessment of
whether it is necessary and proportionate to use lethal force
to deal with an imminent threat to human life. Forces will be
required to follow Guidance cards where their commanders in theatre
have authorised them to carry weapons.
ROE and further guidance will also be issued
as required to cover other aspects of operations. A good example
of this would be the aide-memoire issued to personnel during the
OP TELIC warfighting phase which concerned duties towards Prisoners
of War and civilians under the law of armed conflict. These principles,
taught to service personnel throughout their careers, cover individual
responsibilities in relation to protected persons and property,
as well as the principles of military necessity, humanity, distinction
and proportionality.
While maritime, land and air Component Commanders
will have visibility of each other's Rules, they will disseminate
to the Commanding Officers in their Chain of Command those Rules
which they decide to delegate and those which they decide need
to be passed. Further, while the handling, dissemination, delegation
and development of ROE follow established UK doctrine, the requirements
of senior Commanders, Commanding Officers and individual servicemen
in the maritime, land and air environments obviously differ.
Within a warship a knowledge of most Rules will
only be required by the Commanding Officer and warfare officers
"fighting the ship", but in a ship's boarding party
all of the sailors and marines involved will need to understand
the Rules relevant to them. In the air environment some Rules
will be relevant to pilots and navigators but others will apply
to any personnel who may for example be required to guard the
airfield.
Established UK doctrine is sufficiently versatile
to accommodate these requirements, and ensures that personnel
understand the Rules they need to complete their mission and have
visibility of the Rules which apply to others which they need
to see. Therefore, many ROE rules will be specific to the maritime,
land and air environments. Only some will apply directly to the
use of force by the great many individual personnel on the ground.
If there is an investigation into suspected
misconduct and if there is a claim that the conduct may have been
permitted by ROE then that is the point at which the Service Prosecuting
Authority should have access to those parts of an ROE profile
which are relevant to the matters which they are considering.
ROE relevant to a disciplinary or criminal case will of course
have to be disclosed. There are, however, well established rules
in Service Courts for the handling of sensitive material, including
conducting hearings in camera, and arranging security clearances.
As a matter of departmental policy, and for
proper security reasons, Rules of Engagement are not made public
or even commented upon. Even generic Guidance Cards are Restricted.
Where they have been adapted for particular missions, their public
disclosure would be detrimental to security.
In conclusion, there is well established doctrine
in relation to ROE which underpins effective Command and Control.
That doctrine has been honed in the light of many operations in
recent years and works well. ROE doctrine is well understood and
personnel are trained on it throughout their careers. Mission
specific ROE and changes to ROE during missions are therefore
briefed to an audience who have a fundamental understanding of
the key principles already. The relationship between ROE and the
law is clear and well understood.
April 2006
| 
