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 Nuremberg Principles define the duty to disobey unlawful orders compared with UCMJ Article 90–98?
Executive summary
The Nuremberg Principles establish that following orders is not a blanket defense for international crimes and that individuals have a duty to disobey manifestly illegal orders (see the Nuremberg judgment and related codifications) [1] [2]. The U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) contains specific criminal articles (notably Articles 90–98) that punish willful disobedience and other misconduct but evaluate lawfulness of orders and obedience under military procedure rather than by invoking Nuremberg’s international‑criminal standards [3] [4].
1. What Nuremberg actually said: “I was following orders” was rejected as exoneration
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg concluded that superior orders do not automatically excuse individuals for crimes under international law and established principles later summarized in U.N. materials that responsibility for international crimes can be personal even where acts were committed under orders [1] [2]. These materials informed later restatements — commonly called the Nuremberg Principles — that civilian and military actors cannot rely on mere obedience to avoid liability for grave crimes, a rule tied to post‑war efforts to make those norms generally applicable [5] [2].
2. The UCMJ’s approach: criminalizing disobedience within a military legal system
The UCMJ provides a statutory framework for addressing failure to obey and related misconduct, with Article 90 criminalizing willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer and adjacent articles (92–98) covering failures to obey orders, dereliction of duty, and other offenses in service of discipline and order [3] [4]. UCMJ prosecutions are structured by the Manual for Courts‑Martial and case law that requires proof of elements such as the existence, delivery, and lawfulness of the order and the accused’s willfulness [3] [6].
3. Where the two legal worlds intersect — and where they diverge
Both Nuremberg principles and the UCMJ recognize that not every order is lawful; Nuremberg operates at the level of international criminal responsibility for atrocities, saying manifestly illegal orders do not absolve perpetrators [1] [2]. The UCMJ, by contrast, is a domestic military code: it punishes disobedience but also leaves room for legal defenses about whether an order was unlawful or whether disobedience was reasonable under the circumstances — questions resolved through military procedure rather than by invoking Nuremberg doctrine directly [3] [4].
4. Practical consequences for a service member considering refusal
Military reporters and analysts note that courts and prosecutors resist a generalized “Nuremberg defense” — soldiers cannot simply claim “I was following orders” to escape liability — but the UCMJ also criminalizes failing to obey lawful orders, so refusal carries risk if the order is later adjudged lawful [7] [8]. Military legal commentary underscores that whether Articles like 90 or 92 apply depends on factors such as who issued the order, how it was issued, and whether the alleged superior falls within statutory definitions [9] [10].
5. Ambiguities and institutional incentives worth noting
Reporting and legal analysis highlight institutional incentives on both sides: military justice seeks to preserve command authority by punishing disobedience, while international criminal law aims to prevent impunity for atrocities by rejecting obedience as an automatic shield [7] [5]. Sources also flag doctrinal limits — for example, some UCMJ provisions (Articles 90 and 92) apply only to orders from members of the armed forces as defined by statute, creating technical gaps when civilian principals are involved [9].
6. What available sources do not say and where to look next
Available sources do not give a single sentence rule reconciling every scenario where Nuremberg duty to disobey and specific UCMJ articles conflict; instead they show a layered legal reality: international criminal law rejects obedience as blanket exculpation for atrocity [1] [2], while the UCMJ prosecutes disobedience through defined elements and procedures that can yield different practical outcomes [3] [4]. For case‑level application consult primary texts: the full Nuremberg judgment and UCMJ articles/Manual for Courts‑Martial and recent case law summaries [1] [3].
Limitations: This analysis uses only the provided materials and therefore summarizes high‑level points and cited reporting; finer doctrinal differences and recent case decisions beyond these sources are not covered here [1] [3].