Rules of Engagement in Terrorism Threats Literature review

Rules of Engagement in Terrorism Threats - Literature review Example According to Cole, Drew, McLaughlin & Mandsager ( ), ‘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 commands. In context to the present scenario OHCHR ( ), the country-specific government frames ROE that decides the manner in which the military forces of a nation, must deal while indulging in high-level of terrorist activities. Furthermore, ROE is 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 the lives of civilians. 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. The 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 civilians. According to Broadstone ( ), a number of key determinants act as the basis upon which the government of a nation frames the ROE. Some of them are the 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 with the political intentions.