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 constitutes an "unlawful order" under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)?
Executive summary
The UCMJ requires service members to obey lawful orders but recognizes that manifestly illegal orders need not be followed; orders that are "clearly" violative of U.S. or international law—such as directives to target civilians or commit crimes—are commonly described in reporting and legal commentary as unlawful [1] [2]. Military law also presumes orders are lawful, placing the burden on a service member to show an order was manifestly illegal before refusing it without risking punishment under Article 92 [2] [3].
1. What the UCMJ says: obedience is the rule, illegality is the exception
Article 92 of the UCMJ makes failure to obey an order punishable; that legal framework creates a default presumption that orders are lawful and must be followed, and refusing an order risks Article 92 charges unless the order is unlawful [3] [2]. Commentators emphasize that while the code requires obedience to lawful general orders and regulations, there are recognized exceptions for orders that violate the law [2].
2. How commentators and experts define “unlawful order”
Journalistic and legal commentary tend to define unlawful orders as those involving clear violations of U.S. or international law—for example, intentional targeting of civilians or commands to commit crimes that statutes or the law of armed conflict explicitly prohibit [1] [2]. Legal analyses and practice guides stress the idea of a “manifestly unlawful” or obvious illegality: ambiguity weakens a refusal defense and heightens risk for the servicemember [2] [4].
3. The practical burden and risk for a service member
Multiple sources note the practical dilemma: because orders are presumed lawful, the service member bears substantial risk in refusing one. One FAQ bluntly states that, realistically, the only way to know if an order is illegal may be to obey or refuse and see the post-factum adjudication—highlighting the peril of either choice [5]. Other analyses echo that refusing a lawful order is itself punishable, so clear illegality is the typical threshold for justified refusal [1] [2].
4. Historical and case examples that shape the standard
Military courts and historical precedents are often cited when explaining unlawful orders—examples such as the prosecution of Lieutenant Calley for orders to kill civilians in Vietnam illustrate that following an order does not automatically excuse criminal conduct when the order directed criminal acts [5]. Commentators use such cases to show the boundary between lawful obedience and criminal liability for manifestly illegal commands [1].
5. Tension with public and political messaging
Recent public debates—such as politicians urging service members to refuse unlawful orders—have reopened scrutiny of what that phrase means; legal experts told media that encouraging refusal of unlawful orders is a correct statement of law, but officials have warned against urging disobedience without specifying illegal acts, because ambiguity can undermine military discipline and invite allegations under prohibitions on attempting to cause insubordination [6] [7]. Reporting stresses that those urging refusal often did not point to a specific illegal order, which complicates legal and disciplinary assessments [8].
6. Standards for judging illegality: “manifest” or “obvious”
Sources emphasize the “manifestly unlawful” standard: an order must be obviously and plainly illegal on its face—e.g., ordering murder of noncombatants—for a refusal to be defensible without near-certain legal protection [1] [2]. Where orders are politically controversial, unwise, or later judged mistaken, those features alone do not make them unlawful under the UCMJ; the line is criminality or explicit violation of law [1].
7. Limits of current reporting and legal uncertainty
Available sources repeatedly note ambiguity and procedural risk: reporting and practice guides caution that recognizing an unlawful order can be difficult in fast-moving situations and that the definitive legal determination often occurs after the fact in courts or tribunals [5] [1] [2]. Sources do not provide an exhaustive statutory checklist for “unlawful order” and instead rely on case law, principles of domestic and international criminal law, and the manifest-illegality concept [5] [2].
8. What a service member or advisor should take away
Practical guidance from the sources is clear: obey lawful orders; refuse only those that are clearly illegal (e.g., orders to commit crimes or intentionally target protected persons), document context where possible, seek legal counsel, and understand that refusing an order carries substantial disciplinary risk unless the illegality is manifest [1] [2] [5]. Available sources do not list a definitive procedure that guarantees immunity for refusal in every circumstance—final determinations often depend on later judicial review [5] [2].