Which UCMJ articles govern obeying orders and disobeying unlawful orders?

1. What the UCMJ actually names: Article 92 is the baseline

Article 92 — titled “Failure to obey order or regulation” in the UCMJ — is the statutory core for most charges about not following orders or regulations and is the provision most frequently invoked in everyday disciplinary and criminal cases ^{[1] [2] [6]}. Numerous civilian defense-law sites and practice guides reiterate that Article 92 covers a wide range of conduct from refusing a specific command to violating standing regulations ^{[2] [6]}.

2. When refusal becomes a different crime: Articles 90 and 91

If the act at issue is willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer, prosecutors may bring Article 90 charges, which target direct disobedience to commissioned officers; Article 91 addresses insubordination toward non‑commissioned officers and warrant officers ^{[3] [4] [5]}. Legal commentators emphasize that the form of the order (a direct command to a particular subordinate) can open the door to these more serious disobedience offenses under the UCMJ ^[3].

3. The “duty to disobey” and the difficult line between lawful and unlawful

Multiple sources stress that service members are required to obey “lawful” orders and that unlawful orders need not be followed; but recognizing an unlawful order is often legally and practically difficult, especially in the field where orders are presumed lawful and the burden to show an order was manifestly illegal falls on the service member ^{[7] [5] [8]}. Defense and advocacy groups point out that an order that directs clear criminal conduct (for example, shooting unarmed civilians) would be “patently illegal,” yet determination of legality often comes only later in courts or tribunals ^{[9] [7]}.

4. Consequences of following an unlawful order — no automatic immunity

Sources caution that following an unlawful order does not automatically protect a servicemember from criminal responsibility; military judges and courts evaluate defenses and context, and there are established defenses drawn from military practice ^{[10] [9]}. Legal practice sites and attorney blogs note that obeying an unlawful command can still expose the follower to prosecution, though case law and military benchbooks describe defenses that can mitigate or excuse conduct in some circumstances ^{[10] [8]}.

5. Practical guidance in sources: seek counsel and use reporting channels

Practice-oriented pieces repeatedly advise service members to seek military legal counsel (JAG) before refusing orders unless an order is obviously illegal, and to use non‑judicial reporting remedies (Inspector General, Article 138 complaints, or congressional inquiries) when uncertain ^{[9] [7]}. Commentators also warn about career and criminal risks: disobeying a lawful order can result in Article 92 (or 90/91) charges and serious penalties, while refusing unlawful orders may still trigger investigation and require strong factual and legal justification ^{[9] [7]}.

6. Disagreements and gray areas in commentary

Legal analysts differ on how easy it is to defend refusal to follow orders from the highest civilian authorities and how the UCMJ’s disobedience articles map onto complex chains of command; Lawfare highlights situational nuance and argues prosecutions of senior officers for disobeying top civilian leaders are legally fraught ^[3]. At the same time, practitioner sites emphasize the clear statutory text that makes obedience fundamental but include recognized exceptions for unlawful orders ^{[2] [4]}.

7. What the available reporting does not settle

Available sources do not mention a single bright‑line test in statute for when an order is “unlawful” in every operational context; instead, they show the question is context‑dependent and often resolved after the fact by courts or military judges ^{[9] [7]}. They also do not provide exhaustive citations to every relevant case — readers are advised that the cited summaries and practice guides reflect common interpretations rather than a comprehensive judicial catalogue ^{[10] [8]}.

Bottom line: Article 92 is the principal UCMJ provision for failure to obey orders or regulations; Articles 90 and 91 address willful disobedience to commissioned and non‑commissioned superiors respectively. The duty to refuse unlawful orders exists in principle, but sources emphasize heavy practical and legal ambiguity about when an order is “manifestly illegal” and urge immediate legal advice and use of formal reporting channels when in doubt ^{[1] [3] [7]}.