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 have courts treated 'manifestly illegal' orders in landmark cases (e.g., Nuremberg, My Lai, Abu Ghraib)?
Executive summary
Courts have treated so‑called “manifestly illegal” orders differently depending on forum and facts: international tribunals after Nuremberg established that following orders is not an absolute defense and leaders can be held criminally liable (background in historical overviews) while U.S. courts in My Lai and Abu Ghraib prosecutions overwhelmingly punished lower‑level personnel but struggled to reach or sustain accountability for senior commanders or civilian policymakers (analysis and case outcomes summarized in reporting) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Coverage shows a persistent gap between legal principles that reject obedience as a shield and the practical limits of prosecuting high‑level actors in democratic systems [1] [3] [2].
1. Nuremberg set the legal baseline: “I was just following orders” is not an absolute defense
The post‑World War II Nuremberg tribunals articulated the core rule now invoked in discussions of manifestly illegal orders: individuals — including military and civilian leaders — can bear criminal responsibility for atrocities despite claims of superior orders, creating the normative foundation for later war‑crimes prosecutions and international law developments (historical overviews and legal summaries note Nuremberg’s watershed role and its influence on subsequent jurisprudence) [1].
2. My Lai: principle affirmed, accountability partial
Reporting and scholarly summaries show that My Lai produced prosecutions of soldiers such as Lt. William Calley and other low‑to‑mid‑level actors, confirming courts will punish manifestly illegal conduct even in combat, but senior officers largely escaped sustained criminal accountability — illustrating the recurring pattern where legal doctrine and practical enforcement diverge [1] [2].
3. Abu Ghraib: courts find torture and war crimes but high‑level accountability remains elusive
Courts and court filings treating Abu Ghraib document that U.S. military investigations and later civil litigation characterized the treatment as torture and war crimes, and some military personnel were court‑martialed; civil juries and judges have allowed claims against contractors to proceed and in at least one 2024 jury decision plaintiffs prevailed against a contractor, while other trials ended in mistrial or long appeals — showing mixed remedial outcomes despite legal findings that the conduct was unlawful [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
4. Domestic courts — doctrine versus practical limits
U.S. federal courts and military tribunals have repeatedly held that fundamental international norms (e.g., prohibition on torture) cannot be displaced by policy memoranda, and judges have rejected absolute immunity arguments when plaintiffs allege grave violations; yet judges and juries face hurdles such as state‑secrets claims, causation and control questions for contractors, and statutory limits like narrowed scope of the Alien Tort Statute — all of which have constrained remedies in practice [4] [5] [3] [7].
5. Contractors and civil suits: a new front for accountability
Recent litigation shows U.S. courts are a venue where survivors pursue redress against private contractors implicated in abuse. Courts have at times allowed Alien Tort Statute and other claims to proceed, and Human Rights Watch called a 2024 jury award against a contractor “landmark,” signaling that domestic civil litigation can yield consequences even where criminal prosecutions do not [6] [5].
6. Why high‑level prosecutions remain rare
Multiple reports and analyses converge on practical explanations: evidentiary gaps about who gave unlawful orders, deference to military chain‑of‑command explanations, political reluctance to prosecute senior officials, and doctrinal obstacles such as immunity claims — all limit the reach of courts despite the clear legal principle that manifestly illegal orders do not excuse crimes [2] [3] [1].
7. Competing perspectives in the record
Advocates and human‑rights groups emphasize that judicial rulings and civil awards are overdue corrective measures that vindicate international norms; by contrast, defenders of state actors and contractors stress operational context, ambiguity in orders, and legal doctrines (sovereign immunity, statutory limits) that complicate liability — both themes recur in case coverage and court opinions [3] [6] [7].
8. What the precedent means going forward
The combined record from Nuremberg to My Lai to Abu Ghraib establishes the legal rule rejecting obedience as a blanket defense and shows domestic courts can and do adjudicate grave violations; however, the pattern of prosecutions focused on lower‑level actors while higher officials frequently evade criminal sanction remains, meaning legal norms outpace political and evidentiary realities in many cases [1] [2] [5].
Limitations: available sources in this packet provide historical summaries, reporting and case documents on Nuremberg, My Lai and Abu Ghraib but do not supply complete texts of all judicial opinions or quantitative tallies of prosecutions; for specific citations or full legal texts, consult primary court opinions and archival materials not included here (not found in current reporting).