Wg Cdr UC Jha and Gp Capt Kishore Kumar Khera (Retd)

This Occasional Paper analyses how Rules of Engagement (ROE) must evolve to remain effective in an era of hybrid warfare, compressed decision timelines, and new domains of conflict. It begins by surveying national and international definitions of ROE and explains how they emerge from the intersection of political direction, operational requirements, and legal obligations under International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law. The authors discuss standing, supplemental, and mission-specific ROE, the centrality of self-defence, and the role of Judge Advocates and ROE planning cells. Using historical examples—from Vietnam and Kargil to contemporary India–China border management—the paper shows how over-restrictive or poorly framed ROE can undermine operations. It then explores domain-specific ROE challenges in cyber warfare, special operations, space warfare, and urban combat, addressing questions of proportionality, target legitimacy, collateral effects, and humanitarian constraints. The study concludes that properly drafted, continuously reviewed ROE are indispensable instruments for aligning military action with national policy and law while preserving necessary tactical flexibility.