Some Reflections on Self-defence as an Element in Rules of Engagement

Chapter

Abstract

From 16 to 20 June 2007, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Taliban were engaged in a fierce battle over Chora, Afghanistan, resulting in many civilian casualties in and around that capital city. ISAF is a coalition of states established to contribute to the maintenance of security, but which through their frequent engagement in actual warfare have become parties to the armed conflict in Afghanistan. As a result, their actions are governed by international humanitarian law. This includes the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, i.e. attacks expected to cause civilian casualties at a level excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated. The hostilities in and around Chora have given rise to the question whether they might have violated this prohibition (a question ultimately answered in the negative). In this debate, self-defence was among the arguments raised in justification. Self-defence usually figures as a standard clause in the rules of engagement. These are texts which, established by commanders, permit or limit the use of force by their armed forces. The chapter briefly discusses the character of these instruments and of the clauses they contain. The focus is in particular on the self-defence clause. Self-defence may be individual or collective, and it may arise on three different levels: as national self-defence, unit self-defence or individual self-defence. National self-defence is the right for states to defend themselves against an attack or imminent attack. Unit self-defence is a notion generally accepted in military practice without having a firm legal basis in most countries. In contrast, individual self-defence is recognised in every domestic legal system. In the closing chapter, the chapter focuses on the relevant Dutch legal system, because the troops involved in the battle over Chora were Dutch forces and collective unit self-defence might have been at issue as an exculpatory argument in that case.

References

Documents

  1. AIHRC and UNAMA, Joint investigation into the civilian deaths caused by the ISAF operation in response to a Taliban attack in Chora district, Uruzgan on 16th June 2007. http://www.warisboring.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/aihrc_chora11.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2011
  2. Cole A et al (2009) San Remo handbook on rules of engagement, IIHL, San Remo. Available on the website of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, San Remo. www.iihl.org. Accessed 30 Dec 2011
  3. FM 3-0: Field Manual No. 3-0, Operations; Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 27 Feb 2008Google Scholar
  4. FM 100-23: Field Manual No. 100-23, Peace Operations; Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 30 Dec 1994Google Scholar
  5. Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law. Now available as a daily updated database. www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/customary-law. Accessed 30 Dec 2011
  6. ICRC (2011) International Humanitarian Law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts, Report prepared for the 31st International conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 28 November–1 December 2011, Part II. The Notion and Typology of Armed Conflicts, section 2, Classification of Armed Conflicts, a) Typology of Common Article 3 NIACs. www.rcrcconference.org/docs_upl/en/31IC_IHL_challenges_report._EN.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2011
  7. Ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken, Defensie en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking (2007) Bestrijding internationaal terrorisme. http://www.rijksbegroting.nl/algemeen/gerefereerd/1/1/0/kst110402.html. Accessed 30 Dec 2011
  8. Ministerie van Defensie (2008) OM: Geweldsaanwendingen Chora rechtmatig. http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2008/06/30/4686547/OM_Geweldsaanwendingen_Chora_rechtmatig. Accessed 30 Dec 2011
  9. Ministerie van Defensie (2010) Het Nederlandse aandeel in operatie Enduring Freedom. http://www.defensie.nl/nimh/geschiedenis/internationale_operaties/missieoverzicht/46169139/enduring_freedom/nederlandsaandeel. Accessed 30 Dec 2011
  10. Operational Law Handbook (2012) International and Operational Law Department. The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Charlottesville, VirginiaGoogle Scholar

Literature

  1. AJP-3.4 (A) (2010) NATO, Allied Joint Doctrine for Non-Article 5 Crisis Response Operations. http://www.cimic-coe.org/download/AJP_3.4.9_CivMilCoop_ratification_draft.pdf
  2. Boddens Hosang J (2009) Aandachtspunten in de ISAF ROE vanuit het strategisch-juridische kader, 102 Militair Rechtelijk Tijdschrift 5, pp 219–226Google Scholar
  3. Borghouts H et al (2006) Borghouts H, Daverschot R, Gillissen G, Evaluatie toepassing militair strafprocesrecht bij uitzendingen. http://www.eerstekamer.nl/id/vi3heba3h2wg/document_extern/w31487rapportcieborghouts/f=/vi3hed1fqxxy.pdf
  4. Cole A (2009) Legal issues in forming the coalition. In: Schmitt MN (ed) The war in Afghanistan, Legal Analysis, vol 85 U.S. Naval War College International Law Studies, Naval War College, Newport, pp 141–153Google Scholar
  5. Coolen G, Walgemoed G (1996) Dienstopdrachten gegeven door buitenlandse militairen. Militair Rechtelijk Tijdschrift 89:238Google Scholar
  6. Coolen G, Walgemoed G (2008) Militair Strafrecht. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  7. De Graaff H (1965) Outlines of military criminal and disciplinary law in the Netherlands. Mil Law & Law War Rev 4:17Google Scholar
  8. Department of Defense (2010) Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (as amended through 15 August 2012). http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf
  9. Department of Defense (2011) Joint Publication 1-04, Legal Support to Military Operations, I-12: Chapter I, figure I-3. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_04.pdf
  10. Dieben D, Dieben T (2005) Aspects concerning the criminal case against Eric O. http://www.libertysecurity.org/article351.html
  11. Dolman M et al (2005) Dolman M, Gill T., Ducheine P., Functioneel geweldgebruik in internationale operaties: een spiegel van rechtspraak en praktijk. Militair Rechtelijk Tijdschrift 10:369Google Scholar
  12. Ducheine P (2010) De status van aanwijzingen van buitenlandse commandanten bij de beoordeling van functioneel militair geweldgebruik. Militair Rechtelijk Tijdschrift 103(3):145Google Scholar
  13. Ducheine P, Pouw E (2009) Operaties in Afghanistan: Rechtsbases en rechtsregimes, Research Paper 91, Faculty of Military Sciences, Netherlands Defence Academy, p 34. http://dare.uva.nl/document/215152
  14. Fournier S (2007) NATO Military Interventions Abroad: How ROE are adopted and jurisdictional rights negotiated. Paper presented at the XVth international congress of social defence entitled: “Criminal Law between war and peace: Justice and cooperation in criminal matters in international military interventions”, Toledo, Spain. http://www.defensesociale.org/xvcongreso/ponencias/SylvainFournier.pdf
  15. Jorg N (1996) De zaak Clegg. Militair Rechtelijk Tijdschrift 89(2):54Google Scholar
  16. Kroon W, Jacobs M (1996) Rules of engagement: Een verkenning. Militaire Spectator 166(3):124–130Google Scholar
  17. Knoops G (2008) Defenses in Contemporary International Criminal Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stephens D (1998) Rules of engagement and the concept of unit self defense. Naval Law Rev 45:126–151Google Scholar
  19. Vink A (2010) Grenzen aan geweldgebruik binnen de Rules of Engagement: de Tactical Directive. Militair Rechtelijk Tijdschrift 103(2):86–91Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Public International and Humanitarian LawLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Public International LawLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations