How do international laws and the Geneva Conventions affect the lawfulness of military orders?
Executive summary
International humanitarian law (IHL), anchored in the Geneva Conventions, requires that combatants respect protections for civilians, the wounded, and prisoners — and it makes certain acts “grave breaches” that states must penalize and investigate [1] [2]. Military personnel are not excused from liability simply because they were following orders: multiple analyses and reporting note that unlawful orders — including those violating the Geneva Conventions — can expose service members to domestic or international prosecution [3] [4].
1. What the Geneva Conventions actually regulate — and their practical limits
The Geneva Conventions are treaties forming the core of IHL that set minimum protections for civilians, prisoners of war, and those hors de combat; they are designed to balance military necessity and humanity [2] [5]. Their text and later Additional Protocols focus primarily on protecting non‑combatants and those no longer fighting [1] [2]. The ICRC’s updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention stresses this protective purpose and aims to give military, legal and policy practitioners practical guidance for contemporary conflicts [5].
2. How the Conventions affect the lawfulness of orders given in war
Orders that would require or foreseeably cause violations of Geneva protections — for example, directing intentional attacks on civilians or torture of detainees — fall outside lawful military conduct. The Conventions identify certain acts as “grave breaches” and require states to legislate criminal penalties and to investigate and bring alleged perpetrators or those who ordered them to trial [1]. That legal framework means an order that commands or facilitates a grave breach is treated, under IHL, as unlawful [1].
3. Individual responsibility vs. “just following orders”
Multiple sources gathered in recent reporting and scholarship emphasize that obedience to an unlawful order is not a blanket defense. Service members who follow manifestly illegal commands can be held liable under domestic military law or in international fora; the duty to disobey unlawful orders is part of both U.S. military law practice and IHL commentary [3] [4]. The Conversation and allied outlets report survey and analytic work showing troops understand the distinction between lawful and unlawful commands and that following orders is not a complete legal shield [3].
4. Where international and domestic law intersect — and sometimes collide
The Geneva Conventions operate as international treaty obligations that States must implement — for example by enacting penal laws and procedures to prosecute grave breaches [1]. Domestic military codes (such as the U.S. UCMJ discussed in reporting) define obedience and the duty to disobey within national criminal and disciplinary systems; those systems can prosecute unlawful obedience even where the order originated from a superior [3] [4]. Contemporary commentaries warn that operational pressures, resource constraints and political direction can make compliance challenging even where legal obligations are clear [6].
5. Interpretation, guidance and the role of the ICRC commentary
The ICRC’s updated 2025 Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention was explicitly developed to make the Convention usable in modern conflicts and to clarify the balance between military necessity and humanity [7] [5]. The Commentary is intended as an authoritative interpretive tool for military lawyers and commanders, which affects how orders should be framed and assessed in practice [5]. States and commanders still retain discretion in operational choices, but the Commentary seeks to reduce ambiguity that might otherwise be used to justify unlawful orders [7].
6. Political and institutional pressures that shape obedience decisions
Reporting on current U.S. debates around rules of engagement and executive direction highlights that political leadership and institutional priorities influence how strictly militaries enforce compliance with IHL [6]. Analysts argue that attempts to loosen or delegitimize established ROE (rules of engagement) can create legal and moral risks for troops and for state compliance with Geneva obligations [6]. Conversely, robust training and clear legal guidance reduce the likelihood that lower‑level personnel will receive orders that violate the Conventions [5].
7. Limits of the available reporting and where questions remain
Available sources explain the broad legal framework, the ICRC’s interpretive role and that unlawful orders can trigger individual liability [1] [5] [3]. They do not provide exhaustive case law or a step‑by‑step checklist for individual soldiers deciding in real time whether to obey an order; nor do they catalogue every national implementation practice, which varies by state (not found in current reporting). For operational questions, military legal advice and the updated ICRC Commentary are the recommended practical starting points [5].
Conclusion: The Geneva Conventions and current IHL doctrine make clear that orders producing prohibited acts are unlawful, that states must investigate and penalize grave breaches, and that “just following orders” is not an automatic defense — but implementing those rules in the field depends on national law, rules of engagement, command guidance and the practical clarity that interpretive tools like the ICRC’s updated Commentary aim to provide [1] [5] [3].