Practicing Law on a Different Battlefied

"Apart from the graceful foresight of God the Almighty, the strength, wealth and security of the Kingdom rest on the navy." -Christian IV, King of Denmark 1588-1648 I. INTRODUCTION I am pleased to have this chance to write about the function of legal adviser to the Danish armed forces. I will focus on the navy, which is my branch, and on peace support operations, which are the primary function of the modern Danish military. The contents of this Article are my private views. I do not go into specific details, because I aim to provide a broad impression of some aspects of the role of military legal adviser in a time when conceptions of conflict are rapidly changing. The position of legal adviser to the Danish Armed Forces is relatively new. Created in 1997, the office consists of one legal adviser for the Joint Staff, one for each branch of the armed forces (army, navy, air force), and one for the Danish reaction forces, five in all. We do not possess a large staff-or any staff for that matter-so our responsibilities include legal research and the production of legal guidelines, as well as day-to-day necessities, such as drawing up military contracts. There are, however, thirty-seven reservist legal advisers who can be called upon to serve the entire military in wartime. That number should satisfy the need to give proper counseling to military commanders in times of heightened conflict. The primary function of the legal adviser is to counsel force commanders in the permissible use of force. Our recommendations are based on the various sources of international humanitarian law, the mandate for the specific mission, and any applicable domestic legislation. The latter requirement can be particularly troublesome, because numerous countries' domestic law may apply when a multinational force is assembled. These limitations are combined into a set of regulations called the "Rules of Engagement." These Rules spell out, in plain language, the rights and duties of the individual commander or soldier in various wartime situations. The need for these rules of engagement stems from the fact that modern hostilities are most often low-intensity conflicts which require commanders to be able to regulate his use of force according to the appropriate level of conflict intensity and, especially, to the political situation. Previously, hostilities tended to take the form of formal wars, where the rights and duties of the involved parties were laid out in the various conventions and customs making up humanitarian law, such as the Geneva Conventions and Protocols and the Hague Conventions. Most armed forces are still organized and trained for this type of fighting. The process of restructuring the military to address the need of modern conflicts is an enormous task, not made easier by the constant demands of politicians. An example of this predicament occurred during the Cold War. The Danish navy had prepared to defend the Danish straits thereby blocking the Soviet fleet's exit from the Baltic Sea. This kind of fighting could be prepared well in advance and to a very high degree of detail. The enemy was well-known, and thus the battle plans had been scrutinized well before any actual combat. The scene of the clash would be very close to home, giving us such logistical advantages as alleviating any need to have an immense support network available as the military had ready access to supplies. In those days there was less need for a legal adviser close at hand because the scenarios that we operated under did not include the complications inherent to modern military operations within the political and legal limits of peacetime. At that time, all of the military's extended authority was expected to be used in support of the operation. Any legal issues were discussed at a very early stage, and changes in the scenario were highly unlikely. Today, the military is often employed far from Danish territory; Danish soil is mostly unthreatened. …