Rules of Engagement in Terrorism Threats - Literature review Example

Rules of Engagement in Terrorism Threats Overview of the Topic Literature review is considered as one of the core sections in a research study, which comprises of secondary data findings gathered from various journals, newspaper articles and other secondary sources of information. The review of literature will be used as a major source of data collection to support the requisite of a study and ensure reliability of the findings. Correspondingly, this would further assist the researcher in relating the research findings with that of the research problems. In the research study, literature review would provide a great deal of knowledge about the relevant topics that are to be discussed and justify on how the secondary research investigations play a key role in answering the selected research problems1. The particular study would provide a comprehensive overview of various topics that would be emphasized in the research study. The reviews would be considered for analysing the meaning and features that are related with the rules of engagement, policy-framing structure by the specific government of a country to safeguard the civilians against terrorist attacks along with liberties provided to the civilians2. The paper would also try to highlight the impact of preventive and pre-emptive policies on members of public and others during terrorist attacks. Furthermore, the paper would draw suggestions concerning the protection of civilians and facts pertaining to use of force by the security forces during high-level of terrorist attacks. The literature review would be discussing these problems in accordance to the research aim for determining how public lives can be safeguarded during high-degree of attacks involved in terrorist activities. The following sections would provide a brief overview of the topics to be discussed in relation to the Rules of Engagement. Rules Of Engagement in Terrorism Threats According to Cole, Drew, McLaughlin & Mandsager (3), ‘Rules of Engagement’ (ROE) refers to those policies, which play a key role in determining the situations, extent, and approach that the armed forces have to exercise while conducting their actions. In short, the rules of engagement are such rules that are framed to limit the use of military services by the armed forces and restricting their use to a considerable extent. The rules of engagement are considered as lawful commands4. In context to the present scenario OHCHR (5), the country specific government frames ROE that decide the manner in which the military forces of a nation, must deal while indulging in high-level of terrorist activities. Furthermore, ROE are designed to gauge preventive measures that would enable the armed forces to take preventive steps in dealing with terrorists and keeping in mind the duty to safeguard lives of civilians6. The ROE can act as a major facilitator in restricting the effectiveness of military functions and preventing the public from being injured in conflicts between military and terrorist groups. Government of a nation reserves the sole responsibility of determining the ROE, with regards to conflicts that involve public members and wherein, the lives of the public remains threatened. Hence, in order to minimize the effect of clashes between the terrorists and military forces, the government frames ROE for the benefit of the civilians7. According to Broadstone (8), a number of key determinants act as the basis upon which the government of a nation frames the ROE. Some of them are law concerning armed forces of a nation, the operational factors, political scenario, domestic laws as well as values of the country. These factors further determine that ROE serves its political purpose by ensuring that the military activities are in accordance to the political intentions9. Furthermore, with the help of ROE, government of a nation seeks to establish that a proper implementation of ROE would lead to a decline in the undesirable circumstances, such as minimal involvement of the public in high-level conflicts10. According to Elsea (11), ROE is designed in order to safeguard lives of civilians who remain under a constant threat of extinction. Furthermore, according to the sources, ROE has the sole responsibility of protecting lives of prisoners of war as well as the civilians engaged in war. In addition, it must be put into consideration that there exists a difference between the combatants as well as public12. During high-levels terrorist threats, combatants may give rise to the possibility of waging a war, however, the public may not participate in such situations. Unless the civilians do not participate in the conflicts, it is the duty of the military forces or police to defend their lives from such hostilities13. According to Lovell & Primoratz (14), ROE encompasses four vital components. These are direction, subject matter, function and addressees. According to the authors, there are two basic rules that act as a basis of protection of the lives of civilians in terrorist attacks. In the present scenario, wherein, the protection of civilians is of utmost importance, the ROE compromises of two major rules, which have a direct impact upon the protection of public in terrorist activities. The two rules pertaining to ROE are the ‘Protection of others’ and ‘Self-Defence’. While framing ROE, government of a nation determines the rules, keeping in mind the requirement to use military services by way of self-defence during terrorist attacks. The rules regarding self-defence comprises of various subsections, including ‘individual self-defence’, ‘use of force’ and ‘protection of others’, amongst others. The ‘individual self-defence’ enables member of public or military forces to protect themselves in case of forthcoming terrorist attacks15. The ROE provides the right to the individual serving the military forces to consider use of defensive attacks during life-threatening combat situations. According to subsection 12C of the ROE handbook, a person can make use of a deadly force to combat terrorists for the protection of public16. Furthermore, military forces can make use of self-defence and enforce it to lessen the consequences of terrorist attacks. In addition, the policymakers have provided the right of military forces to use self-defence for protection of public in case there does not remain any non-forceful substitute to self-defence. Military forces can make use of strength, until there is non-existence of a non-forceful alternative or else in continuation of the hostile conditions prevailing during the high-level terrorist attacks. Protection of Civilians and the Use of Force by the Security Forces One of the crucial components of self-defence mechanism inbuilt within the ROE is ‘protection of others’, which focuses on defending the lives of public by ensuring that their lives are saved from high-level terrorist attacks. Section 12 of the ROE handbook, defines use of force during the terrorist attacks for protection of public. The right gives the authority to military personnel to defend the public during terrorist attacks unless specified by the higher authorities17. The self-defence and protection of others contribute towards engaging in a pursuit, in case the hostile nature of terrorists or the hostile situations do not face a decline. In case of ROE, the pursuit to exercise the self-defence for protection of others is limited to a considerable extent, wherein, military forces can engage in such activities until the terrorist forces exhibit an aggressive intent. The series 12 of the ROE Handbook clearly outlines the purpose of controlling the utilization of force for safeguarding the public, who are not recognized as the members of military forces. Furthermore, the section also outlines the various subsections with regards to protection of the public in terrorist attacks. Rule 12(A) outlines the fact that the use of force with the intention to protect lives of public is prohibited. The rule 12(B), summarizes the permit to make use of non-deadly force, acting as self-defence for the protection of public18. The subsection emphasizes upon the ROE, wherein, military forces can make use of non-deadly force to a considerable extent to save the public lives and in order to combat the terrorists. Subsection 12 (C) of the ROE determines the protection of public by the military forces through use of deadly weapons to a certain degree, until the intent to combat by the terrorists does not lower down to a considerable extent19. Section 12 (D) of the rule of protection of others, specifies that the military forces can indulge themselves in using deadly weapons, with the purpose of reducing the extent of crime or harm of the public by the terrorists. The subsection lays emphasis upon the fact that military forces can make use of self-defence mechanism in order to reduce the loss of public lives during armed clashes while dealing with terrorists20. According to MsLaughlin (21), there exists a strong dependency of ROE on protection of the public from terrorist attacks. In situations of armed conflicts, there is a need to safeguard the lives of public by ensuring that there are adequate rules, procedures and guidelines, based upon which the military forces would be able to use defensive attacks on terrorists. According to the views shared by the author, there remains a constant obligation of military forces to ensure that there is a balance between gaining success in the conflicts with the terrorists as well as ensuring that lives of the public are not endangered22. Furthermore, the author outlines two major factors that would degrade the applicability of ROE, in case of terrorist attacks. One of the reasons behind the inability to protect the lives of the public reflects on a negative attitude displayed by the troops during confrontations with the terrorist groups, wherein, some of the soldiers respond to the terrorist attacks in a tentative manner. This behaviour increases the level of risks associated with harm to the fellow soldiers and civilians, which consequently reduces the ability of military forces to minimize public losses23. Another factor, which diminishes the extent to which the public lives can be safeguarded, is the aggressive behaviour displayed by the military forces towards the terrorists. This increases in uncertainty of loss of public lives and increased harm to the innocent public from being shot by the police while combating with the terrorists24. The author furthermore, examines the ways by which these military personnel can protect the life of public from being shot in terrorist attacks. In the context of ensuring that lives of the public are secured to the highest possible extent, the military forces can ensure that the laws as stated in the ROE are adhered appropriately and the political objectives of the state are fulfilled25. Number of key steps is to be taken in order to ensure that public lives are defended from during terrorist combats. To prevent the loss of public lives during terrorist attacks, the ROE must be applied following such an extent that could be understood by the military forces26. In addition, the committee involved in forming ROE, must develop certain specific ways in which military forces will be trained prior to engaging themselves in combat situations27. Furthermore, good leaders must be produced out of proper training imparted to the military personnel through quality training, who will have the inert ability to control military groups and deal with terrorists in an effective manner28. In addition to training, emphasis needs to be laid on the role of public who need to save their own lives from the consequences of conflicts between military forces and terrorist groups. In panicking situations, the civilians need to take shelter as early as possible, which will consequently reduce the effect of military firing on the civilians29. Furthermore, to combat with the terrorists, military forces need to identify the terrorist groups, which would ensure that the lives of public are not threatened by its consequences. Prior to use of deadly force by the police or military forces, it must be ensured that identification of the terrorists have been made in advance. While framing ROE, the Government reserving the right to frame the ROE policies, must consider the fact that ROE is not a specific law, but is regarded as a means by which the law can be enacted upon the military forces to safeguard the lives of the public from being shot during the terrorist level attacks30. Policing And Civil Liberties According to Oxfam (31), UN Security Council (UNSC) considers following a number of recommendations that will allow saving lives of public in case of firing against the terrorists during combats. The UNSC has devised a number of recommendations, which can prove to be successful in reminding the military forces that protection of public lives is of utmost importance. UNSC considers a number of tools to be used in order to take preventive action in high-level terrorist attacks. One of the key tools that would play a significant role in safeguarding public lives is the sanction policy framed by UNSC32. The sanctions can be imposed upon the military forces, which will help in preventing the public lives through implementation of techniques such as travel bans, freezing the excessive use of military equipments, reducing firing in areas having high population density among others. Another step that can effectively reduce the loss of public lives is arms embargoes33. Significantly reducing the flow of ammunitions throughout communities engaged in giving rise to a public level conflict can play a key role in minimizing the number of people who are at a constant threat of being shot by the police or military forces. The UNSC has developed stricter policies that aim at reducing the flow of arms and destabilize the situations that have been affected due to conflicts at areas high chances of facing a terrorist attacks34. Another big stride towards protection of public lives is the establishment of Ad hoc courts, referrals and inquiry commissions. These judicial level decision makers and justice tribunals will seek to determine punishment for military forces that disregard the ROE and seek justice for victims associated with high-level of terrorist attacks35. In order to ensure that there does not arise any conflicts amongst the armed forces and terrorists, UNSC seeks to improvise upon peacekeeping missions, which will consequently reduce the number of people being shot by the police. In addition, the UNSC may consider a number of recommendations made at the global level, which when implemented can effectively reduce the loss of public lives36. Concerning the implementation of ROE in conflicts with terrorist groups, the UNSC can establish specific rules regarding use of force by military forces and stabilize the situations by authorizing the use of force to an extent that does not affect lives of civilians. In addition, the UNSC can expand list of sanctions concerning protection of civilians and their safety in high-level terrorist attacks. The UNSC must ensure that database regarding the affect of armed conflicts upon the public must be updated and possible actions must be taken to combat the terrorist group activities37. In addition, a request can be sent to the political parties and military forces, to keep an account of the number of civilians affected in these conflicts as part of the data analysis. The data analysis must inculcate a timely assessment of the overall situation, including the number of deaths, number of people who have been shifted, and people engaged in conflicts, terrorist forces, amongst others38. Global level NGO’s can play a key role in managing people living under a constant threat of injuries by establishing high-level security standards, which would ensure that reporting is done on a timely basis on account of conflicts39. According to Holt & Taylor(40), NATO is involved in establishment of Civil Emergency Planning (CEP), which seeks to enhance the security standards and degree of civil preparedness in situations involving high-level of conflicts, such as terrorist attacks. Furthermore, the above strategy is aimed at dealing with negative consequences of the attack. According to Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (41), the basic aim behind the creation of CEP is the supply of support and guidance to the national level authorities for the protection of civilians. Civil protection is also a key concern to be looked at for reducing the ill effects of terrorist activities on the public. This involves establishment and implementation of certain structures, which would arrange the military and police forces to combat with the terrorists in an effective manner. Furthermore, focus must be laid on continuous evaluation of the necessary means for civil protection, which will assure that proper amendments are being made at the right time to combat with terrorist groups42. The military forces can take vital steps regarding the identification of public, redesigning of existing strategies and recognizing issues of allocation of military equipments. In order to reduce the level of attacks on the public, the government and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), can frame and implement a national response team that would carry out effective steps such as evacuation of the public from places of terrorist attacks43. Apart from public evacuation, the team can play a key role in transportation of the public from combat places to nearby hospitals. This would ensure that the public who have been shot by the military forces or police during terrorist combats are safe and their lives are protected44. Risks regarding damage to public property and health, can be effectively minimized through raising awareness on the steps public can implement to differ themselves from the terrorist groups and take shelter at times of conflicts. Awareness will seek to change the perception of public regarding the combat atmosphere and potential threat to their lives of public caused by such terrorist attacks. Enhanced degree of communication and information sharing between the government, public and police would ensure that the concerned parties properly implement the pre-defined steps in case situations involving actual conflicts arise. NATO further emphasizes on devising clear-cut strategies, aimed at informing the public regarding the forthcoming conflicts between the police forces and terrorist groups45. Similarly, it must be ensured though proper communication that public provides required information within specific time in case of casualties and terrorist activities. The police may engage itself in regular training classes with the public that would provide equal opportunities for the involved parties to learn what to do in such scenarios46. Criminal actions may be downtrodden if necessary actions are taken at the right time, which would further lessen the chances of terrorist activities. In accordance to the ROE, policies must be framed in a manner that would certainly reduce the number of terrorist activities and their impact upon public47. In addition, there needs to be a regular evaluation of public perception regarding terrorist activities and necessity to keep the shared information in a secretive manner. The use of force concerning the protection of public must be accompanied by a continuous vigilance by national and international level authorities, associated with implementation of the ROE. Furthermore, as a key step towards the public protection, the authorities must ensure that the public develops high-level of assurance towards the police48. A number of steps can be taken by the public, government and third-party communities that would lessen the issue of people being shot during terrorist combats. These would inculcate alerting service by the police as soon as incidence occurs, evacuation of the public, providing relief shelters to the public for ensuring that their lives are secured to a certain extent and taking camouflage steps to deal with the terrorists49. Preventive and Pre-Emptive Policing Rescue missions by the police as well as the public would ensure that the lives of the public who are under the threat of being shot are displaced from their existing locations, and requisite amenities are being provided to them50. The rescue missions would exhibit health services for the public and first aid benefits in case of being shot. Fire fighter options along with other necessary services must be provided in case of terrorist attacks, along with tracing the zones that are under a constant danger of the same51. Effective measure such as decontamination and emergency shelter as well as supply of the mandatory materials must be looked after with adherence to saving public lives. Furthermore, steps such as complying with the set order under ROE must be taken into consideration to ensure that public lives are safeguarded52. Furthermore, authorities need to consider additional steps such as providing the affected with required foodstuff and medical facilities, prior to and after the armed conflicts with terrorists. Amongst others, it must be ensured that essential means of survival are being provided to the public who have been displaced from their actual residences in order to ensure that their lives are secured to the fullest possible extent53. In the context of ROE, United Nations (54), sets out guidelines on how public can be protected from being shot by police. It also aims at determination of the fact that while ROE is being implemented by the police, there must not be existence of any scope of discrimination on the civil liberties. The civilians must be identified and they must be given complete freedom to tackle the conflicts to a certain level. Pressure must not be imposed upon the public and steps must be taken to ensure that they have complete freedom to save their lives and escape from such situations. In addition, the military forces must not make use of forced attack against the public in case they are unwilling to leave their personal grounds55. Moreover, the military forces cannot engage in using deadly attacks on the public, unless they merge with the enemies as a combatant. Stricter actions must be taken against the police personnel and other authorities, in case there have been misconduct of duties and casualties being reported during terrorist combats. The public must be given complete freedom to raise their voice or else escape from combat situations. In order to save oneself from the police firing, the public needs to know the rights they possess56. Proper knowledge and application of the ROE as well as humanitarian laws would enable the public to take actions against police, in case of misconduct during terrorist activities. Furthermore, as part of the civil liberties, the public reserves the right to raise questions, prevent oneself from answering and restricting the police affairs unless police is able to publish a search warrant. In addition, the public has the right to make use of force against the terrorists or seek assistance from the police in terms of deadly attack on the same . Concerning the ROE, the liberal policies mandate the protection of public through use of armed force, however, only at the discretion of public. In the context of implementing the ROE, a certain number of obligations need to be adhered for ensuring that public lives are safeguarded. Police personnel or military forces have the utmost obligation of protecting the public facing situations of impending threat and armed conflicts57. Furthermore, there exists an obligation by the police to be followed, i.e., defending the public in an impartial manner. The police must safeguard public lives, without considering sex, religion and political affiliation of the people being protected. The policies set by ROE, requires the police to follow the obligation of acting without injustice and serve the core responsibility of protecting public who reside within the political boundaries of a location under threat of terrorist activities58. The policies set by the higher authorities, also aim at ensuring that the police conducts its duties in a disciplined manner and must not make use of unethical means and aggression to deal with negative situations. Furthermore, following the laws of the nations under the threat, dignity of the public and imparting quality protection as well as medical facilities to the public are the key policies concerning ROE that will save the lives of the public from being attacked by police gunshots. The police forces must play the role of a facilitator in defending the public lives and ensure that protection of public is far more necessary approach than accomplishment of mission during high-level terrorist attacks59. References Baker, G. ‘Book Reviews’. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Vol. 13, issue. 4, 2005, pp. 517-541. Bergholm, L. ‘The African Union, the United Nations and civilian protection challenges in Darfur’. Working Paper Series, No. 63, 2010, pp. 1-34. Breidlid, I. M. & Lie, J. H. S. ‘Challenges to protection of civilians in south Sudan: A warning from Jonglei state’. Security in Practice, No. 8, 2011, pp. 1-45. Broadstone, H. C. ‘Rules of Engagement in military operations other than war, from Beirut to Bosnia’. National Military Security, 1996, pp. 1-39. Brodsky, A. ‘Civilian protection measures against terrorist attack are the best preventive medicine’. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 90, no. 8, 2000, pp. 1325. Citizens for Global Solutions. ‘Protecting civilians in armed conflict’. Factsheet, n.d., pp. 1-3. Cole, A., Drew, P., McLaughlin, R. & Mandsager, D. ‘Sanremo handbook on rules of engagement’. International Institute of Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 1-85. Colville, I., Pye, A. & Carter, M. ‘Organizing to counter terrorism: sensemaking amidst dynamic complexity’. Human Relations, Vol. 66, issue. 9, 2013, pp. 1201-1223. Cornelissen, J. P., Mantere, S. & Vaara, E. ‘The contraction of meaning: the combined effect of communication, emotions, and materiality on sensemaking in the stockwell shooting’. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 51, no. 5, 2014, pp. 700-736. Criminol, B. J. ‘Chibnall revisited: crime reporters, the police and ‘law-and-order news’. British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 50, issue. 6, 2010, pp. 1060-1076. Crown. ‘UK government strategy on the protection of civilians in armed conflict’. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, n.d., pp. 1-15. Elsea, J. ‘Terrorism and the law of war: trying terrorists as war criminals before military commissions’. CRS Report for Congress, 2001, pp. 1-48. Faix, M. ‘Rules of engagement - some basic questions and current issues’. CYIL 1, 2010, pp. 133-145. Finlan, A. ‘The perils of special approaches to counterterrorism: the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005’. Defense & Security Analysis, Vol. 29, issue. 3, 2013, pp. 188-202. Gardner, D. Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear. Random House, USA, 2008. Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. ‘Protecting civilians through dialogue with armed non-state actors’. Rules of Engagement, 2011, pp. 1-88. Geneva Call. ‘Protecting civilians in armed conflict through humanitarian engagement with armed non-state actors’. Geneva Call Strategy 2014-2016, 2014, pp. 1-8. Gordon, S. ‘The protection of civilians: an evolving paradigm?’ Stability: International Journal of Security & Development, Vol. 2, issue. 2, 2013, pp. 1-16. Hier, Sean, Greenberg & Joshua. The Surveillance Studies Reader. McGraw-Hill Education, UK, 2007. Hoffman, B. Inside Terrorism. Columbia University Press, USA, 2006. Holt, V. & Taylor, G. ‘Protecting civilians in the context of UN peacekeeping operations’. Successes, Setbacks and Remaining Challenges, 2009, pp. 1-384. Holt, V. K. & Berkman, T. C. ‘Military preparedness, the responsibility to protect and modern peace operations’. The Impossible Mandate? 2006, pp. 1-240. Holt, V. K. & Stimson, H. L. ‘The military and civilian protection: Developing roles and capacities’. Resetting the Rules of Engagement, 2004, pp. 53-66. Howard, M. ‘A long war?’ Survival, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2007, pp. 7-14. ICRC. ‘Enhancing protection for civilians in armed conflict and other situations of violence’. Enhancing Protection, 2012, pp. 1-90. Jackson, A. ‘Talking to the other side Humanitarian engagement with armed non-state actors’. Policy Brief, no. 47, 2012, pp. 1-4. Jones, T. ‘The politics of the police’. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, Vol. 22, issue. 4, 2012, pp. 545-547. Kitson, F. ‘Low intensity operations’. Faber and Faber, 1991, pp. 1-208. Lamp, N. & Trif, D. ‘United Nations peacekeeping forces and the protection of civilians in armed conflict’. Working Paper, no. 47, 2009, pp. 1-57. Lippmann, W. Public Opinion. Filiquarian Publishing, LLC, USA, 2007. Lovell, D. W. & Primoratz, I. Protecting Civilians During Violent Conflict: Theoretical and Practical Issues for the 21st Century. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., UK, 2013. Melton, V. D. ‘The rules of engagement: the role social media plays in effective corporate communication strategies’. Rules of Engagement, 2012, pp. 1-50. OHCHR. ‘International legal protection of human rights in armed conflict’. United Nations Publication, No. E.11.Xiv.3, 2011, pp. 1-119. Oxfam. ‘Protection of civilians in 2010’. 147 Oxfam Briefing Paper, 2011, pp. 1-40. Oxfam. ‘The role of UN peacekeeping missions in the protection of civilians’. Oxfam Policy Compendium Note, 2012, pp. 1-6. Punch, M. Police Corruption: Deviance, Accountability and Reform in Policing. Routledge, UK, 2009. SCR. ‘Protection of civilians in armed conflict’. Cross-Cutting Report, 2013, pp. 1-40. Silver, R. C. & Fischhoff, B. ‘What should we expect after the next attack?’ Am Psychol, Vol. 66, issue. 6, 2011, pp. 567-72. Smith, D. ‘Public money & management’. Editorial, Vol. 26, issue. 5, 2006, pp. 271-273. Squires, P. & Kennison, P. Shooting to Kill: Policing, Firearms and Armed Response. John Wiley & Sons, USA, 2010. Stimson Center. ‘Navigating mandates and rules of engagement’. From The Council To The Field, n.d., pp. 80-99. Svendsen, D. M. ‘Re‐fashioning risk: comparing UK, US and Canadian security and intelligence efforts against terrorism’. Defence Studies, Vol. 10, issue. 3, 2010, pp. 307-335. Taylor, P. Talking to Terrorists: Face to Face with the Enemy. HarperPress, USA, 2011. Travers, T. ‘Policing and public order’. Local Government Studies, Vol. 32, issue. 3, 2006, pp. 341-356. United Nations. ‘Evaluation of the implementation and results of protection of civilians mandates in United Nations peacekeeping operations’. Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, 2014, pp. 1-26. United Nations. ‘Module 2: international legal dimensions of the Protection of Civilians (POC)’. Preparatory Notes to Instructors, 2011, pp. 1-33. United Nations. ‘Report of the Secretary-General on the protection of civilians in armed conflict’. Security Council, 2012, pp. 1-25. UNOCI. ‘Comprehensive strategy for the protection of civilians’. Final Report, 2012, pp. 1-28. Vaughan-Williams, N. ‘The shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes: new border politics?’ Alternatives, Vol. 32, 2007, pp. 177-195. Whittaker, D. Terrorism: Understanding the global threat. Longman, UK, 2002. Williams, P. D. ‘Enhancing civilian protection in peace operations: insights from Africa’. Africa Center for Strategic Studies Research Paper, No. 1, 2010, pp. 1-74. Read More