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 military justice systems across countries treat obedience to unlawful commands today?
Executive summary
Military systems generally require obedience to lawful orders but impose a duty to refuse manifestly unlawful commands; in the U.S., Article 92 of the UCMJ establishes obedience to lawful orders while doctrine and international law place criminal liability on those who carry out clearly illegal orders [1] [2]. Reporting shows debate in the U.S. over how visible and practicable that duty to refuse is in real operations, with some commentators warning the guidance may sow confusion while others stress the legal obligation to disobey illegal commands [3] [4] [5].
1. The baseline: presumption of legality, but an exception for unlawful orders
Most military codes begin with a presumption that orders are lawful and must be followed; in the U.S. this is codified in Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, “Failure to obey order or regulation” [1]. At the same time, U.S. military law and international bodies stress that service members are not free to execute orders that are manifestly illegal—those that clearly violate the Constitution, criminal law, or the laws of armed conflict [2] [6]. That dual rule—obey unless unlawful—frames the legal landscape across sources.
2. Criminal liability for following unlawful orders: domestic and international hooks
Sources repeatedly note that following a clearly unlawful order is not a defense: service members can face courts-martial and, in some circumstances, international prosecution if they execute orders that are criminal on their face [6] [2]. Legal commentary and military manuals cited in reporting emphasize that liability arises when a subordinate “knew” or “should have known” the ordered act was unlawful, a standard the International Committee of the Red Cross also references [2].
3. The practical problem: “manifestly” unlawful vs. operational ambiguity
Journalistic and defense outlets stress a recurring practical tension: refusing a lawful order is itself punishable, and many orders are not obviously unlawful in the split-second or high-pressure conditions of operations [3]. Analysts warn troops may be ill-equipped to identify where the line of “manifestly unlawful” lies, creating legal and moral risk for both obeying and refusing [5] [3].
4. Political debate over guidance to troops—warning of confusion or necessary clarity
Recent political interventions—such as a video by Democratic lawmakers urging troops to refuse illegal orders—have ignited disagreement in the press and opinion pages. Supporters argue the reminders reinforce long-standing legal duties; critics say public exhortations to resist orders risk undermining discipline by encouraging troops to presume orders are unlawful without legal grounding [7] [4] [8]. Military commentators caution such public messaging can generate ambiguity about when refusal is justified [3].
5. Historical precedents and training expectations
Commentators and veteran voices point to historical examples—such as My Lai—to justify the duty to refuse manifestly illegal orders and to underscore the human cost when subordinates comply [8]. Law firms and military-defense columns emphasize that doctrine and training include rules of engagement and law-of-war instruction intended to prepare service members to recognize unlawful commands, though reporting suggests confidence in that training varies among troops [9] [5].
6. Competing interpretations and the media’s role
Conservative opinion pieces underline an overarching duty of obedience to lawful authority and warn that politicized appeals to resist could erode order [4]. Center-left and legal-educational analyses highlight the constitutional and international law duty to disobey illegal orders and call for clearer guidance to troops about the threshold for “manifestly unlawful” [10] [6]. News reporting frames both positions as plausible responses to the same legal realities, pointing to disagreement about emphasis rather than a disagreement about the existence of the legal duty itself [3].
7. What the sources do not settle and open questions
Available sources do not mention comparative treatment across many other national military justice systems beyond the U.S.; they focus on U.S. law, doctrine, political debate, and international-law principles as applied to U.S. forces (not found in current reporting). Sources also do not provide a uniform operational test for when an order is “manifestly” unlawful in real time; rather, they document legal standards, training goals, and the practical ambiguity that troops and commanders confront [2] [3].
8. Bottom line for readers
The law is clear in principle: obey lawful orders, refuse manifestly unlawful ones, and accountability can follow either obedience of criminal orders or refusal of lawful ones [1] [6]. The contested ground is practical application—how troops recognize unlawful commands and how public political messaging affects discipline and clarity—an area where sources disagree on emphasis and where reporting urges better guidance and training [5] [4] [3].