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 case law or DoD instructions clarify when an order is manifestly unlawful (e.g., murder) and must be disobeyed?
Executive Summary
Courts, international tribunals, and DoD-related commentary converge on a clear legal baseline: service members must refuse orders that are manifestly unlawful, such as orders to murder civilians or commit torture, but the threshold for “manifestly unlawful” is high and fact-dependent. Recent U.S. scholarship and case law emphasize consulting Judge Advocates when ambiguous, while international tribunals and comparative decisions articulate a stricter duty to disobey clearly criminal commands [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the phrase “manifestly unlawful” matters now — and who says so
Contemporary analyses stress that the phrase “manifestly unlawful” is decisive because it limits the duty to disobey to orders that are immediately and obviously criminal, like murder or torture, rather than to orders that are merely unwise or contested. U.S. discussions grounded in the Uniform Code of Military Justice point to Article 92 as the domestic vehicle that obliges obedience to lawful orders while carving out an exception for orders that are plainly illegal [1] [4]. International case law and post-World War II principles — invoked repeatedly in the literature — reinforce that the Nuremberg legacy bars “just following orders” as a defense for war crimes, creating a cross-jurisdictional consensus that manifest unlawfulness triggers refusal [1] [3]. This framing shapes training, legal advice, and the real-world calculus facing a service member under pressure.
2. What U.S. authorities and commentators say about the practical test
U.S. sources emphasize that the burden to prove an order was manifestly unlawful generally rests with the service member, producing a high evidentiary threshold in practice and prompting repeated counsel to seek Judge Advocate guidance when uncertainty exists. Recent commentary from 2025 underscores that examples of plainly illegal orders include targeting civilians, torture, and falsifying records, but cautions that many operational or deployment directives are not obviously illegal on their face and thus may not meet the “manifest” standard [1] [4]. Legal scholars argue that absent a “black flag” level of illegality, refusal risks court-martial under Article 92, so the practical rule working inside the U.S. military system is one of caution: consult counsel unless the illegality is glaring.
3. International tribunals: a tougher duty to refuse criminal commands
International criminal jurisprudence from the ICTY/ICTR and related tribunals articulates a stricter obligation: subordinates are bound not to obey manifestly illegal orders and may even be required to counteract them, with refusal not mitigating criminal responsibility when the order commands murder or similarly egregious crimes [3]. Sentencing decisions such as Erdemović and Mrđa counsel that obedience to manifestly criminal orders does not excuse perpetrators, and appellate jurisprudence frames the duty to refuse as central to preventing atrocities. This international line of cases supplements domestic law by emphasizing that outrageous illegality — not mere policy disagreement — is the triggering condition for refusal.
4. Comparative jurisprudence echoes the “black flag” metaphor and its limits
The Israeli Supreme Court’s Kafr Qasim doctrine, described as a “black flag” test, captures the intuitive standard: orders that wave a black flag of illegality are unmistakable and must be disobeyed. Commentators note tensions in applying this metaphor: one view prioritizes legal clarity while another relies on moral repugnance or gut reaction, raising concerns that heavy reliance on in-theater legal advisors could either help or hinder a soldier’s ability to refuse [5]. The debate reveals an institutional trade-off: juridification channels decisions through lawyers, which can reduce individual moral judgment but increases legal defensibility; conversely, reliance on personal moral revulsion risks inconsistency and retrospective second-guessing.
5. Recent U.S. developments and court rulings sharpening the line
Recent U.S. judicial commentary and litigation have brought these issues into sharper relief. A 2025 federal decision addressing Posse Comitatus implications for troop deployments underlines that illegality in orders to deploy or use force against civilians can attract judicial scrutiny and reinforces the point that service members must disobey orders that clearly violate law, though they should seek legal advice when in doubt [2]. Scholarly pieces from 2024–2025 also highlight gaps in prosecuting senior officers who defy civilian direction, noting possible legislative or Manual for Courts-Martial updates are needed to clarify responsibilities at higher ranks [6]. These developments underline a practical reality: doctrine exists, but application often depends on context, rank, and available legal support.
6. Bottom line for practitioners and policymakers — action and ambiguity
The synthesized record from U.S. and international sources yields a clear normative rule: manifestly unlawful orders (murder, torture, deliberate targeting of civilians) must be refused, yet the determination is frequently contested and fact-specific, with a high burden on the refusing service member and strong advice to consult Judge Advocates when possible [1] [3]. Policymakers and commanders face dual imperatives: ensure training and accessible legal advice so troops can identify “black flag” orders, and clarify higher‑level rules for senior-officer compliance with civilian direction to reduce ambiguity and prevent both unlawful acts and inappropriate prosecutions [4] [6].