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.
How are service members trained to recognize and respond to unlawful orders in different countries' armed forces?
Executive summary
Different militaries train service members to identify and refuse unlawful orders through a mix of legal doctrine, ethics instruction, and chain-of-command safeguards — but reporting shows most debate and recent attention centers on U.S. practice after a November 2025 political flashpoint (video by six Democratic lawmakers) that reignited questions about when troops should disobey [1]. Commentators, veterans and legal analysts agree that the duty to refuse manifestly unlawful orders exists under U.S. and international law, but they disagree sharply about how well training prepares troops to apply that test in real-world pressure situations [2] [1].
1. Legal baseline: the duty to refuse unlawful orders is established law
Military law and international law long recognize that "following orders" is not a blanket defense for criminal acts; service members can be prosecuted for obeying manifestly illegal orders, and commentators emphasize that duty in public debate [2] [3]. Multiple outlets reporting on the Nov. 2025 controversy reiterate that service members are bound by an oath and by law to refuse orders that clearly violate the Constitution, human-rights standards, or the Geneva Conventions [4] [2].
2. How training and doctrine try to operationalize that duty
Reporting suggests the U.S. approach combines ethics and legal education with command responsibility: troops receive instruction about the limits of lawful orders and the protections and risks involved in refusal, while officers are told to prevent unlawful orders reaching subordinates — a two‑oath dynamic that distributes responsibility up and down the chain of command [5] [2]. That training aims to teach recognition of "manifest unlawfulness" rather than nuanced legal debates; outlets note this is a difficult practical threshold for junior personnel to apply under stress [2] [6].
3. Gaps and criticisms: troops often aren’t trained in legal nuance
Multiple reports and a poll cited by The Conversation and other outlets show service members are "not trained in legal nuances" and remain psychologically conditioned to obey, creating tension between doctrine and reality; analysts warn that recognizing manifestly unlawful orders in fast-moving situations is often difficult [2] [6]. Legal-practice commentary warns refusal can protect lives and uphold law but may also bring career and legal risks for the individual, underscoring training and institutional support gaps [3].
4. Institutional safeguards and where responsibility is said to lie
Opinion pieces and analyses stress that officer corps and military institutions bear constitutional and professional responsibilities to stop unlawful orders before they reach lower ranks — a point used to argue that the system contains checks against illegal commands and that reminding troops to disobey is redundant or potentially politicizing [5] [7]. That framing is central to defenders of existing doctrine who say the "oaths already distribute responsibility" and that top leaders should prevent illegal orders [5].
5. Political flashpoint in Nov. 2025: reminders vs. politicization
When six Democratic lawmakers published a video urging troops to "refuse illegal orders," outlets reported a split: some saw the video as a necessary reminder in a fraught moment; others criticized it as irresponsible political messaging that could undermine discipline or put service members at risk when they lack clear guidance on the manifest-unlawfulness threshold [1] [8]. The Pentagon opened reviews and investigations into some participants, reflecting how quickly legal-advice themes can become disciplinary and political issues [9] [10] [11].
6. Competing viewpoints on practical reforms
Some analysts urge clearer, routine legal and ethical training so that service members can better identify unlawful orders; others argue existing professional military education already covers these duties and that public reminders from politicians create confusion or politicize the force [2] [7]. Legal-defense commentators highlight the personal risk to troops who refuse orders and call for institutional protections for those who raise concerns, signaling tension between improving individual judgment and preserving command cohesion [3].
7. What available reporting does not cover
Available sources focus heavily on U.S. doctrine and the November 2025 controversy; they do not provide systematic, cross‑national comparisons of how other countries train service members to recognize and refuse unlawful orders, nor do they supply empirical assessments of training effectiveness across services or nations — "not found in current reporting" on these results (available sources do not mention cross-national training specifics).
Conclusion: U.S. law and doctrine require refusal of unlawful orders and aim to teach that duty, but reporters and scholars say practical recognition is hard for junior personnel and institutional measures are imperfect; commentators are divided over whether public reminders by politicians help or harm service members, and available sources do not offer broad international comparison [2] [5] [1].