Skip to main content

The Development of the Defence of Superior Orders

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Killing on Command

Part of the book series: Critical Criminological Perspectives ((CCRP))

  • 467 Accesses

Abstract

The defence of superior orders has long been a subject of strong debate and controversy. Understanding the tumultuous history of the defence serves many purposes and has numerous benefits. It gives a much more comprehensive and nuanced appreciation of both the defence of superior orders generally and the defence of superior orders as set out in the Rome Statute. The history of the defence also highlights that at various stages the international community and individual nations have adopted different standards or approaches with respect to the defence. The legal standard adopted can be the product of its environment. Environmental factors such as politics, international relations, historical events and the dominance of particular academic or philosophical thought have influenced what legal standard is accepted. The law evolves and changes. However, a very important prerequisite to understanding whether the current standard is the most appropriate and just and whether and how the law should develop or evolve is to understand why the law adopts a particular standard and the rationale for other standards. The history of the defence of superior orders sets this foundational knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The ‘acts of state’ doctrine provides that states do not have jurisdiction over the actions of other states. Accordingly, foreign or international courts cannot litigate the actions of another state—or an individual acting as an organ of the state—without the consent of that state; see, for example, Dinstein (2012, 58) and Kelsen (1943). This doctrine has declined in use, see Solis (1999–2000, 504).

  2. 2.

    Mens rea is the person’s knowledge that the action is criminal or wrong. It is generally a requisite mental element before criminal liability can be imposed. It is important to note though that relatively rare cases of strict liability, that is liability without the establishment of mens rea, are also accepted in common law and legislation; see, for example, Johnson (1980, 304).

  3. 3.

    Although military manual cannot be the basis of court-martial charges, they nevertheless are official documents and representative of government policy and are an important source; see Solis (1999–2000, 495).

  4. 4.

    ICTR Statute (1994, art. 6(4)) provides that

    [t]he fact that an accused person acted pursuant to an order of a government or of a superior shall not relieve him or her of criminal responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the International Tribunal for Rwanda determines that justice so requires.

  5. 5.

    Shaw notes that the Tribunals have focused on the prosecution of the most senior leaders and have referred intermediate- and lower-rank individuals to domestic courts; see Shaw (2008, 407, 409). It is the intermediate- and lower-rank individuals who are more likely to plead superior orders and, as such, this sheds light on the Tribunals’ limited dealing with the defence.

References

  • Almelo trial. 1945. Trial of Otto Sandrock and Three Others. In Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol 1. London: United Nations War Crimes Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v Eichmann. 1962. 36 International Law Reports 275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axtells Case. 1661. 84 ER 1055.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni, M.C. 1999. Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, 2nd Rev. edn. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battle, G.G. 1921. The Trials Before the Leipsic Supreme Court of Germans Accused of War Crimes. Virginia Law Review 8(1): 1–26.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bellot, H.H.L. 1917. War Crimes: Their Prevention and Punishment. Transactions Grotius Society II: 31–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, G. 1916. The Laws of War: Prisoners of War and Reprisals. Transactions of the Grotius Society 1: 15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, W. (1813) 2 Reports of Certain Remarkable Trials 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charter of the International Military Tribunal. 1945. Annexed to Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, August 8, 59 Stat 1544, 82 UNTS 279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. 1946. January 19, TIAS No. 1589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark v State. 1867 135 ALR 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth ex rel. Wadsworth v Shortall. 1903. 55 A 952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 1984. December 10, 1465 UNTS 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein, Y. 2012. The Defence of ‘Obedience to Superior Orders’ in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover Castle. 1921. Judgement in Case of Commander Karl Neumann (1922). American Journal of International Law 16(4): 704–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds, J.E., and L. Oppenheim. 1929. Land Warfare: An Exposition of the Laws and Usage of War on Land for the Guidance of Officers of His Majesty’s Army. London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsatzgruppen trial. 1949. United States v Otto Ohlendorf. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10: Volume IV/1. Washington: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eser, A. 1994. “Defences” in War Crime Trials. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 24: 201–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta, P. 1999. The Defence of Superior Orders: The Statute of the International Criminal Court versus Customary International Law. European Journal of International Law 10(1): 172–191.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Garraway, C. 1999. Superior Orders and the International Criminal Court: Justice Delivered or Justice Denied. International Review of the Red Cross 836. https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jq7h.htm

  • Green, L. 1976a. Aftermath of Vietnam: War, Law and the Soldier. In The Vietnam War and International Law: The Concluding Phase: Volume 4, ed. R.A. Falk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, L. 1976b. Superior Orders in National and International Law. Leiden: AW Sijthoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenspan, M. 1959. The Modern Law of Land Warfare. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotius, H. 1925. The Law of War and Peace: Book II. Trans. F. Kelsey, Carnegie edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hague Convention. 1899. Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, July 29, 32 Stat. 1803.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1907. Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, October 18, 36 Stat. 2277.

    Google Scholar 

  • High Command Trial’. 1947–1948. Trial of Wilhelm Von Leeb and Thirteen Others (1949). Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol XII. London: The United Nations War Crimes Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hostage Trial. 1948. Trial of Wilhelm List, et al. In Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, vol XI/2. London: The United Nations War Crimes Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Fair. 1900. 100 F 155.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Statute. 1993. SC Res 827, UN SCOR, 48th Sess, UN Doc S/RES/827.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Statute. 1994. SC Res 955, UN SCOR, 49th Sess, UN Doc S/RES/955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D.H.N. 1980. The Defence of Superior Orders. Australian Year Book of International Law 9: 291–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafr Kassen Case. 1958. Appeal 279-83, Ofer v Chief Military Prosecutor (A). Psakim (Judgments of the District Courts of Israel), vol 44, 362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keijzer, N. 1978a. A Plea for the Defence of Superior Order. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 8: 78–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keijzer, N. 1978b. Military Obedience. The Netherlands: Sijthoff and Noordhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. 1943. Collective and Individual Responsibility in International Law with Particular Regard to the Punishment of War Criminals. California Law Review 31(5): 530–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht, H. 1940. L. Oppenheim. In International Law: Disputes, War and Neutrality: Volume II, 6th edn. London: Longmans, Green and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht, H 1944. The Law of Nations and the Punishment of War Crimes. British Yearbook of International Law 21: 58–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little v Barreme. 1804. 6 US (2 Cranch) 170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llandovery Castle’. 1921. German War Trials: Judgement in the Case of Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt (1922). American Journal of International Law 16 (4): 708–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marschik, A. 1997. The Politics of Prosecution: European National Approaches to War Crimes. In The Law of War Crimes: National and International Approaches, eds. T. McCormack and G. Simpson. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormack, T. 1997. From Sun Tzu to the Sixth Committee: The Evolution of an International Criminal Regime. In The Law of War Crimes: National and International Approaches, eds. T. McCormack and G. Simpson. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell v Harmony. 1851. 54 US (13 How) 115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mommsen, T., and P. Krueger (eds.). 1985. The Digest of Justinian: Volume IV. Trans. A. Watson. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law. 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, L. 1906. International Law: A Treatise. London: Longmans, Green and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiel, M.J. 1998. Obeying Orders: Atrocity, Military Discipline, and the Law of War. California Law Review 86(5): 939–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peleus Trial. 1945. Trial of Kapitänleutnant Heinz Eck and Four Others. In Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol 1. London: United Nations War Crimes Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Bagosora et al. 2008. December 18, ICTR-98-41-T.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Bralo. 2005. December 7, IT-95-17-S.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Češić. 2004. March 11, IT-95-10/1-S.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Erdemovic. 1996. November 29, IT-96-22-T.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Jelisić. 1999. December 14, IT-95-10-T.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v Mrđja. 2004. March 31, IT-02-59-S.

    Google Scholar 

  • R v Finta. 1994. 1 SCR 701.

    Google Scholar 

  • R v Smith. 1900. 17 Special Courts Reports of Good Hope 561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggs v State. 1866. 3 Coldwell 85, 91 Am. Dec. 272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling, B.V.A., and C.F. Ruter. 1977. The Tokyo Judgment: The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) 29 April 1946–12 November 1948. Amsterdam: APA University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 1998. July 17, 2187 UNTS 90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadat, L.N. 2002. The International Criminal Court and the Transformation of International Law: Justice for the New Millennium. New York: Transnational Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saint A. 1998. The City of God against the Pagans. Trans. R. W. Dyson. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenberger, G. 1968. International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals: Volume II: The Law of Armed Conflict. London: Stevens and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M.N. 2008. International Law, 6th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Solis, G.D 1999–2000. Obedience of Orders and the Law of War: Judicial Application in American Forum. American University International Law Review 15: 481–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalag Luft III trial. 1949 [1947]. Trial of Max Wielen and 17 Others. Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol XI. London: The United Nations War Crimes Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal. 1947. Official Text: Volume I. Nuremberg: International Military Tribunal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triffterer, O., ed. 2008. Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’ Notes, Article by Article, 2nd edn. Oxford: Hart Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly. 1946. Resolution 95(I): Affirmation of the Principles of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal. December 11, A/RES/1/95.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations War Crimes Commission. 1948. History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws of War. London: Majesty’s Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Army. 1944. FM 27-10, Field Manual: Rules of Land Warfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Bright. 1809. 24 F Cas 1232.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Calley. 1973. 22 USCMA 534.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Jones. 1813. 26 F Cas 653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogler, T. 1973. The Defence of “Superior Orders” in International Criminal Law. In A Treatise on International Criminal Law: Vol I: Crimes and Punishment, eds. M.C. Bassiouni and V.P. Nanda. Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, D.A. 1992. The Laws of Land Warfare: A Guide to the US Army Manuals. Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkes v Dinsman. 1849. 48 US (7 How) 88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirz trial. 1865. United States. House Executive Document No. 23, 40th Congress, 2nd Session 764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, A. 2002. Superior Orders. In The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary: Volume I, eds. A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, and J.R.W.D. Jones. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

O’Sullivan, C. (2016). The Development of the Defence of Superior Orders. In: Killing on Command. Critical Criminological Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49581-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49581-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-49580-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-49581-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics