Relevance of Rules of Engagement in Non-International Armed Conflict: A Perspective

Abstract

Concept of Rules of Engagement has its roots in the laws and customs of war that have evolved over centuries. While the specific term ‘Rules of Engagement’ (ROE) may be relatively modern, the underlying principles have historical and legal origins. The law of armed conflict developed into its present content over millennia. To trace out the origin, broadly two categories may be understood which dealt with the early concept of ROE- Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Jus ad Bellum refers to the conditions under which states may resort to war or to the use of armed forces in general . Law became a factor early in the historical development of warfare. The earliest references to rules regarding war referred to the conditions that justified resort to war both legally and morally. The examples which showcase this concept could be found amongst the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians (25th century B.C.) who generated rules and defining the circumstances under which war might be initiated . Even the ancient Hittites (16th century B.C.) required a formal exchange of letters and demands before initiating war. In addition, no war could begin during the planetarium season . Even the Romans formalized laws and procedures that made the use of force an act of last resort. Rome dispatched envoys to the States against whom they had grievances and attempted to resolve differences diplomatically. The Romans also are credited with developing the requirement for declaring war . Cicero wrote that war must be declared to be just . Jus in Bello on the other hand regulates the conduct of parties engaged in an armed conflict . It is body of law which deals with rules that control conduct during the prosecution of a war to ensure that it is legal and moral. Historically, Ancient Babylonians (7th century B.C.) treated both captured soldiers and civilians with respect in accordance with well-established rules .