Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How do international military tribunals assess obedience to unlawful orders compared with U.S. courts-martial?
Executive summary
International tribunals and U.S. courts-martial both reject “just following orders” as a blanket defense: international law requires disobedience of “manifestly unlawful” orders and U.S. military law applies a narrow “manifest unlawfulness” standard under the UCMJ and Manual for Courts‑Martial [1] [2]. Available sources describe a shared baseline — liability for obedience to obvious crimes — but they show differences in emphasis, institutional procedure, and practical thresholds for when a subordinate must refuse [1] [3].
1. How the two systems start from the same premise: individual responsibility, not blind obedience
Both international tribunals (from Nuremberg onwards) and U.S. military law hold individuals criminally responsible for war crimes even when acting on orders; the “following orders” excuse is not an automatic shield in either forum [1] [4]. International humanitarian law explicitly imposes a duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders, and U.S. law — Article 92 of the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts‑Martial — likewise requires subordinates to disobey unlawful commands [1] [5].
2. The key common phrase: “manifestly unlawful” — but its meaning differs in practice
International tribunals use the manifest unlawfulness concept to mean orders that are plainly criminal on their face — for example, orders to kill civilians or commit genocide — and they have historically refused to treat obedience to such orders as exculpatory [1] [6]. U.S. courts-martial apply a similar test: an order is rebuttably presumed lawful and only a “patently illegal” or “manifestly unlawful” order — one that a person of ordinary understanding would recognize as criminal — can justify refusal [3] [2].
3. Procedural differences: whose job is it to decide legality, and when?
International tribunals adjudicate legality and culpability after the fact in criminal trials that often examine command responsibility, intent, and the broader conflict context [7]. In U.S. military practice, the Manual for Courts‑Martial and military judges determine lawfulness as a legal question; importantly, that determination frequently comes only after an accused either obeys or refuses the order and faces prosecution, meaning the immediate risk to a servicemember is often decided in later proceedings [2] [8].
4. Standards and burden: presumption of lawfulness vs. international scrutiny
U.S. military law places a practical presumption of lawfulness on orders — designed to preserve military effectiveness — making the bar for permissible refusal high: the illegality must be clear to “a person of ordinary sense and understanding” [3] [8]. International tribunals, while also focused on clear criminality, operate with a retrospective criminal-investigatory frame that examines patterns of conduct, superior responsibility, and contexts where policy or state orders produced crimes, sometimes resulting in prosecution of high‑level planners rather than only frontline actors [1] [6].
5. Where outcomes diverge: prosecution focus and political pressures
International courts often target leaders and system‑level responsibility and can pursue cases beyond a single nation’s chain of command; they also face international political pushback (sanctions, disputes over jurisdiction) that affects enforcement [7] [9]. U.S. courts‑martial are internal mechanisms; they can punish subordinates for obeying unlawful orders but also protect the chain of command through the high threshold for manifest unlawfulness and reliance on internal legal advice — which critics argue may leave gray-area conduct unaddressed in real time [3] [10].
6. Practical guidance and the lived reality for service members
Reporting and legal FAQs emphasize that servicemembers should seek legal advice when in doubt, because refusing an order risks court‑martial unless the illegality is unquestionable; in practice, recognition of unlawful orders can be difficult in fast-moving situations [2] [11]. Surveys and commentary show many troops understand the duty to disobey but also fear the career and criminal risks of misjudging order lawfulness [1] [12].
7. Competing viewpoints and limitations in reporting
Some analysts argue the U.S. system appropriately biases toward obedience to maintain military effectiveness and requires clear criminality to justify refusal [3] [8]. Others and some academic reporting stress international obligations and historical precedents (e.g., Nuremberg) that place heavier weight on individual moral/ legal responsibility to disobey manifestly illegal commands [1]. Available sources do not mention detailed doctrinal text comparisons (e.g., exact statutory language differences beyond cited rules) or case-by-case jurisprudential tallies comparing conviction rates between tribunals and courts‑martial — such detailed comparative metrics are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for policymakers and troops
Both systems reject blind obedience where orders plainly command crimes, but U.S. courts‑martial embed a strong presumption of lawfulness and a high practical threshold for refusing orders, while international tribunals operate with a prosecutorial, retrospective focus that can and has targeted superior architects of criminal policies [3] [1] [6]. Service members should rely on chain‑of‑command legal advice and recognize that refusal carries real short‑term risks unless the illegality is unmistakable [2] [8].