Taking Terrorism and ROE Seriously

Abstract

Given terrorism and the rise of military 'peace' operations, I argue for a pragmatic approach to justice and war. My argument results in three amendments to the received view of the war and justice model. I claim that Rules of Engagement (ROE) concerning self-defense for deploying forces in counter-terrorism or peace operations should be at least consistent with self-defense ROE employed by law enforcement officials operating domestically. Policymakers in determining deployments in support of such operations must therefore deliberately decide, as part of their own ad bellum procedure, whether or not military ROE will be consistent with such a law enforcement baseline. I also argue that peace and counter-terrorism operations require an explicit acknowledgment of both the commanders' moral responsibility for force protection and the military members' moral justification to defend themselves fully. The method I employ in making my case is a detailed analysis of moral principle operative within three US realms of law--US Constitutional law, international law, and ROE--and through a close consideration of several recent US military operations.