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.
What obligations do Geneva Conventions impose on U.S. service members when orders conflict with international law?
Executive summary
U.S. service members are legally required to refuse manifestly illegal orders such as those that breach the Geneva Conventions; following an unlawful order is not a defense, and individuals can be prosecuted domestically or by international tribunals for violations [1] [2]. States party to the Conventions must enact domestic laws to punish “grave breaches” and to search for and prosecute suspects, placing obligations both on the U.S. as a state and on individual service members to obey international humanitarian law [3] [2].
1. Duty on the individual: “Don’t just follow orders”
The Conversation reporting, drawing on legal norms and a June 2025 poll of U.S. troops, states plainly that following orders from a superior is not a legal defense for committing unlawful acts — service members who follow illegal orders can be court-martialed or prosecuted by international tribunals [1]. That reflects a basic rule of international humanitarian law (IHL): when an order is clearly illegal (for example, ordering torture, deliberately targeting civilians or committing other grave breaches), a soldier must refuse it or risk criminal responsibility [1].
2. State obligations and the domestic enforcement chain
The Geneva Conventions place duties on States Parties to make grave breaches crimes, to search for and prosecute suspects, and to provide jurisdiction in domestic courts; those treaty provisions are implemented through national legislation and military law so that domestic courts and courts-martial can try alleged violators [2] [3]. The legal architecture therefore makes a state — here the U.S. — responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations, which in turn creates obligations on commanders and legal advisers to prevent illegal orders and to discipline transgressions [2] [3].
3. International accountability mechanisms exist beyond domestic courts
Beyond national prosecution, the Conventions contemplate international tribunals or handing suspects over to other States for trial; the Conventions’ text and commentary frame grave breaches as universally actionable, meaning foreign courts or international bodies may assert jurisdiction where appropriate [2] [3]. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and its commentaries remain authoritative interpreters and practical guides for applying the Conventions in operations [4] [5].
4. Interpretation, ambiguity, and “manifest illegality”
Sources emphasize that the threshold for refusing an order is tied to whether the order is “unlawful” or a “grave breach” under the Conventions; disputes arise in practice over what counts as clearly illegal versus a controversial or novel application of force [1] [4]. The ICRC’s updated commentaries and the 2025 revisions to the Fourth Geneva Convention aim to clarify obligations in modern contexts (e.g., urban warfare, social media), but states and commanders sometimes interpret obligations narrowly — a dynamic the ICRC warns can “empty the law of its meaning” if not countered [5] [6].
5. Tension between military hierarchy and legal duties
The Conversation piece reports that U.S. service members understand the rules but face the real-world tension of military obedience and career consequences [1]. The existence of a formal rule — that “following orders” is no defense — does not remove the operational, cultural and command pressures in theatre; commanders and legal advisers are therefore pivotal in translating treaty norms into clear rules of engagement and lawful orders [1] [4].
6. Gaps in the provided reporting and what is not covered
Available sources do not mention the specific U.S. statutes, military regulations (e.g., Uniform Code of Military Justice articles) or explicit training materials that operationalize the Geneva Conventions for U.S. troops in every case; they also do not provide case-by-case precedents of recent U.S. prosecutions tied to refusal-to-obey or obedience-to-illegal-order defenses within the last few years (not found in current reporting). The Office of the Secretary of Defense’s treaty documents and U.S. mission statements suggest engagement with Protocols, but detailed domestic implementing steps are not specified in the set of results [7] [8].
7. Competing perspectives and practical advice for service members
Legal authorities cited frame the rule as clear: illegal orders must be refused and individuals are accountable if they comply [1] [2]. At the same time, ICRC commentary and state practice show that gray areas and contested interpretations persist, so practical reliance on chain-of-command legal advice, documented objections, and timely reporting channels matter operationally [5] [6]. Where sources explicitly disagree about interpretation, they center on how broadly or narrowly states apply Protocols and Additional Protocols — an enduring site of debate [7] [9].
Closing note: The Geneva Conventions impose obligations at both the state and individual level; U.S. service members cannot legally hide behind “just following orders” when commands are manifestly unlawful, but implementing that duty in complex operations depends on domestic law, military procedure, and evolving interpretation by authorities such as the ICRC [1] [2] [4].