What criteria do the Nuremberg Principles set for unlawful military orders?

1. What the Nuremberg Principles actually say

The cornerstone is Nuremberg Principle IV: acting pursuant to a government or superior’s orders does not relieve a person from responsibility under international law if a moral choice was in fact possible to them ^[1]. The Principles, codified by the United Nations after the trials, thus place individual criminal responsibility above the shield of superior orders ^{[5] [2]}.

2. The threshold: “manifestly” or “patently” unlawful

Sources emphasize that not every bad or questionable order is treated the same; the standard developed from Nuremberg and later practice requires the unlawfulness to be clear and obvious. Wikipedia and contemporary commentators note that orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful — those are the classical instances where disobedience is required ^{[2] [1]}. Opinion and legal commentary stress the bar is high in practice and has often been confined to obvious war crimes ^{[3] [6]}.

3. Moral choice and individual responsibility

Nuremberg Principle IV hinges on the existence of a moral choice: if an individual in the chain of command could reasonably have chosen otherwise, they bear responsibility for complying with unlawful commands ^[1]. Several legal summaries underline that the Principle does not automatically absolve or convict; it permits consideration of context, including whether an actual moral choice was possible ^[7].

4. How post‑Nuremberg practice frames the defense

Post‑trial doctrine and later national practice have refined Nuremberg’s blunt rule. International and domestic courts rejected superior‑orders as an absolute defense at Nuremberg itself, and later instruments and cases have carved out limited roles for the defense — sometimes as mitigation where criteria are met ^{[2] [7] [1]}. Commentators on U.S. law point out that American military tradition and criminal law incorporate the Nuremberg principle while also recognizing presumptions of legality for routine, properly authorized military orders ^{[6] [4]}.

5. Tension between presumption of legality and duty to disobey

Contemporary reporting highlights a practical tension: military orders are presumptively lawful when issued by proper authority and relating to duty, which protects service members who follow them; conversely, the Nuremberg legacy imposes a duty to refuse orders that are patently unlawful — a high bar typically imposed for obvious war crimes ^{[4] [3]}. Commentary points to real‑world complications, such as classified legal opinions that can cloak controversial operations in a "patina of legality," complicating assessments of manifest unlawfulness ^[3].

6. Areas of agreement — and where sources diverge

All cited materials agree that Nuremberg rejected an absolute "just following orders" defense and that the most egregious crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity) are manifestly unlawful ^{[1] [2]}. They diverge in emphasis: legal summaries stress that superior orders may still count for mitigation in some contexts ^[7], while press commentary focuses on the high practical bar and how national procedures (including presumptions of legality) operate today ^{[3] [4]}.

7. Practical implications for today’s military personnel

Taken together, the sources convey this operational rule: refuse clearly unlawful orders — especially those that amount to genocide, crimes against humanity, or other obvious war crimes — because Nuremberg treats them as manifestly unlawful; but day‑to‑day military decisionmaking assumes orders are lawful unless manifestly so not, and courts often consider the realistic ability to make a moral choice when assessing responsibility ^{[2] [1] [4]}.

8. Limitations in available reporting

The provided sources summarize and interpret the Nuremberg Principles and later commentary but do not supply the full text of every national statute or a comprehensive list of modern case law defining "manifestly unlawful." For precise legal standards in a specific jurisdiction or for recent cases applying these Principles, available sources do not mention those details and further primary legal research would be needed ^{[5] [2]}.

Summary: Nuremberg put individual responsibility ahead of superior orders, requires a moral choice where possible, and treats orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity as manifestly unlawful; modern practice preserves a presumption of legality for routine orders, making the practical duty to disobey applicable mainly to obvious war crimes ^{[1] [2] [3]}.