How do rules of engagement and command responsibility shape guidance on disobeying unlawful orders?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
U.S. military law requires service members to obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful ones; Article 92 of the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts‑Martial treat lawfulness as a legal question, and a patently illegal order (for example ordering murder) carries no presumption of lawfulness [1] [2]. At the same time, doctrine, precedent and practical limits — including the doctrine of command responsibility and risks of prosecution or career sanctions — shape cautious guidance that encourages seeking legal advice unless an order is “clearly illegal on its face” [3] [4] [5].
1. How the law frames “lawful” and “patently illegal” orders
The Rules for Courts‑Martial and the UCMJ create a presumption that an order is lawful unless it contravenes the Constitution, U.S. law, or is beyond the issuing authority, but they carve out “patently illegal” commands — such as orders to commit crimes — from that presumption; courts determine lawfulness, often after a refusal is litigated [2]. Media reporting and military legal commentary reiterate that following an unlawful order is no legal shield — the so‑called “Nuremberg defense” is not a defense under U.S. or international law [6] [3].
2. Rules of engagement versus orders: guidance, not a free pass
“Rules of engagement” (ROE) are operational instructions that in some systems are treated as binding orders and in others as guidance; they set when force is authorized and when it is not, and can be shaped by legal constraints like the Geneva Conventions [7] [8]. Critics and commentators note disagreements over whether ROE should be strictly binding or flexible — a debate with legal and political stakes when senior officials push for broader latitude [9].
3. Command responsibility changes who must act and how
Command responsibility assigns liability up the chain when subordinates commit crimes under orders, and military doctrine distinguishes responsibilities by rank: officers and senior leaders bear a special obligation to prevent unlawful orders reaching subordinates, while enlisted personnel are taught to obey lawful commands and refuse unlawful ones [10] [11]. Lawfare coverage emphasizes limits: senior officers may face complicated choices when asked to disobey directives from the president or secretary of defense, because the UCMJ and constitutional structure make some scenarios legally fraught [5].
4. Practical guidance given to troops: seek counsel unless clearly illegal
Multiple legal‑practice sources and military lawyers advise service members not to refuse orders except when the illegality is obvious (e.g., orders to shoot unarmed civilians); instead, they recommend immediately seeking a judge advocate or other qualified legal counsel because lawfulness often requires legal analysis [3] [12]. Surveys and reporting indicate many troops understand the duty to disobey unlawful orders in principle, but recognition of borderline or complex cases is lower, underscoring why the guidance stresses consultation [4] [13].
5. Risks and consequences: legal process, career impacts, and ambiguity
Disobeying an order triggers a legal process where the order’s lawfulness and context determine outcomes; even if a soldier believes an order unlawful, refusal can lead to charges under Article 90/92 or administrative penalties unless a court later finds the order illegal [14] [15]. Commentators warn that ambiguous orders — lawful but possibly unethical — create cases where moral courage may not shield a service member from legal or career consequences, because illegality is a narrower standard than immorality [5].
6. Political context and competing narratives
Recent public debates — including congressional messages urging troops to refuse illegal orders and high‑profile political backlash — have crystallized tensions between legal obligations and political narratives; some politicians insist troops must obey civilian leaders while others stress constitutional limits on orders [1] [16]. Reporting from multiple outlets shows both sides cite the same legal texts (UCMJ, Manual for Courts‑Martial) to support competing interpretations about when and how refusal is appropriate [6] [15].
7. What reporting does not settle
Available sources do not mention an exhaustive, operational checklist for frontline troops on every borderline scenario; instead they point to legal standards, doctrinal responsibilities and the practical counsel to seek judge advocate input unless an order is manifestly criminal [2] [3]. They also do not resolve politically contested claims about specific contemporary orders’ lawfulness without judicial or formal legal determinations [6] [16].
Bottom line: U.S. military law and doctrine clearly place a duty to refuse unlawful orders and to hold commanders accountable, but they also embed procedural and practical constraints — the presumption of lawfulness, the need for legal determination, command responsibility, and real career and criminal risks — that drive the repeated official advice: get legal advice unless the illegality is obvious [2] [3] [5].