Can military members refuse to follow orders they believe are unlawful or immoral?

1. Why the Law Says “Don’t Follow a Crime” — The Legal Backbone That Forces a Choice

U.S. military law, principally Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts‑Martial, draws a bright line: service members must obey lawful orders and must disobey orders that require the commission of crimes or clearly violate constitutional or international law; following an unlawful order is not an absolute defense and can be the basis for prosecution in its own right, a principle reinforced by the Nuremberg legacy ^{[1] [4] [2]}. The Manual clarifies that the defense of acting under orders fails if the accused knew the orders were unlawful or if a person of ordinary sense would have known, creating an objective standard that courts and commanders use to assess claims of obedience versus culpability. This legal framework places the initial decision burden on the individual service member, but it also supplies a legal justification for refusal when orders are manifestly criminal, such as directing the slaughter of civilians or torture, as historical cases like My Lai illustrated.

2. Historical Lessons That Shape Modern Obligations — Nuremberg and My Lai as Legal and Moral Precedents

The Nuremberg Principles established that following orders does not absolve personal responsibility for crimes against humanity, and that precedent directly informed both international criminal law and U.S. military jurisprudence; Principle IV is frequently cited to underscore that moral choice remains meaningful in military settings ^{[2] [6]}. The My Lai prosecutions reinforced how domestic military justice treats palpably illegal orders, finding that slaughtering civilians was so obviously unlawful that obedience could not excuse participation, thereby shaping the Manual’s “person of ordinary sense” test and teaching subsequent generations of servicemembers that historical accountability follows participation in manifest crimes ^{[4] [5]}. These episodes anchor the modern duty to disobey in both legal doctrine and ethical expectation, demonstrating that the cost of compliance with illegal orders can extend beyond immediate action to long-term criminal and moral consequences.

3. How Soldiers Actually Understand and Apply the Duty — Survey Data and Cultural Tension

Recent surveys of active‑duty personnel indicate high awareness of a duty to refuse unlawful orders, with one 2025 poll reporting roughly 80% of troops understood the obligation and many saying they would not obey orders to harm civilians, commit torture, or target based on identity; yet cultural pressures toward obedience and chain‑of‑command deference persist, complicating real‑time decisions under stress ^[7]. Military culture and the principle of civilian control of the military create a tension between following lawful orders efficiently and exercising moral autonomy when legality is in doubt, leaving individual service members to weigh career, legal, and safety risks against ethical and legal obligations. Awareness is high but practical courage and institutional support vary, meaning refusal is often a fraught, consequential act even when legally justified.

4. The Practical Test and the Risk of Getting It Wrong — What “Manifestly Unlawful” Means in Real Life

Courts and commanders apply an objective standard: an order is disobeyable when it is “patently” or “manifestly” illegal such that a reasonable person would recognize it as a crime or clear violation of law; ambiguous or lawful‑appearing orders that later prove unlawful do not automatically justify disobedience, so the timing and clarity of the illegality matter a great deal ^{[3] [8]}. Service members who refuse an order face administrative and criminal risks, and may need legal counsel or a court‑martial to vindicate their decision; the burden of proving the order was manifestly unlawful falls on the accused, and historical and doctrinal authorities inform that assessment. The rule protects against blind obedience but does not invite unilateral reinterpretation of lawful commands, meaning refusal is narrow, high‑stakes, and fact‑dependent.

5. What Commanders, Policymakers, and Service Members Should Keep in Mind — Implications and Institutional Gaps

The legal and moral doctrines obliging refusal of unlawful orders point to institutional responsibilities: commanders must issue lawful orders and provide training and reporting channels that let troops raise concerns without undue retaliation, while policymakers should ensure clear rules of engagement and oversight to reduce ambiguities that force on‑the‑spot moral judgments ^{[3] [1] [9]}. International norms like Nuremberg reinforce individual responsibility, but the effectiveness of those norms depends on credible military justice, accessible legal advice, and cultural leadership that legitimizes lawful dissent; without such supports, the burden placed on junior personnel becomes disproportionate. Addressing practical gaps requires clearer guidance, protection for good‑faith refusals, and robust accountability mechanisms so that the legal duty to disobey is both meaningful and practicable ^{[2] [7]}.