Wikipedia Deep Dive

Superior orders

13 min read

In 1474, a knight named Peter von Hagenbach stood before a tribunal in the Holy Roman Empire and offered a defense that would echo through five centuries of legal history: he was only doing as he was told. Hagenbach had overseen an occupation in Breisach where atrocities were committed against civilians under his command. When faced with the weight of these crimes, he pointed to his superior, Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, arguing that a subordinate could not be held accountable for executing the will of a prince. The court rejected this plea outright. Hagenbach was convicted of war crimes and beheaded. His execution marked the first modern European recognition that command does not grant immunity; rather, it imposes a duty to prevent crime. This singular moment established a precedent that would remain fractured, contested, and brutally tested for centuries: the idea that no order can justify a violation of fundamental human rights.

The plea known as "superior orders," or colloquially as "just following orders," is not merely a legal technicality found in military manuals. It is a profound moral collision between the rigid hierarchy required by armies and the individual conscience demanded by humanity. At its core, it asks a terrifying question: when does obedience become complicity? For centuries, the answer seemed to shift with the wind of political necessity. In some eras, a soldier was a vessel for the state's will, absolved of personal guilt. In others, particularly after the horrors of the mid-20th century, the law demanded that every individual bear the burden of their actions, regardless of who signed the command.

The legal landscape surrounding this defense is littered with the ruins of failed justifications and the ghosts of those who paid the price for blind obedience. The concept is often referred to as the "Nuremberg Defense," a moniker that immediately conjures images of the 1945–1946 trials held by the victorious Allies to prosecute the leadership of Nazi Germany. But the roots of this legal struggle stretch far deeper than the ashes of World War II. It is a narrative woven through the fog of war, where the line between a lawful command and a criminal act was often obscured by violence, fear, and propaganda.

The Weight of the Sword: Early Precedents

Long before the concept of "war crimes" was codified in international treaties, military tribunals grappled with the limits of authority. The trial of Peter von Hagenbach remains the cornerstone of this history. It introduced the doctrine of command responsibility, suggesting that a leader is not just responsible for their own actions but for what they fail to prevent under their watch. Hagenbach's defense was straightforward: he was a knight serving his liege lord. To disobey would be treason; to obey was his duty. The tribunal, however, saw a deeper truth. They recognized that certain acts—murder, rape, the destruction of civilian life—are so universally condemned that no sovereign can authorize them. By rejecting Hagenbach's plea, the court established that a soldier is not an automaton.

This principle was tested again in the brutal crucible of the Second Boer War at the turn of the 20th century. In 1902, four Australian officers—Breaker Morant, Peter Handcock, Henry Picton, and George Witton—were dragged before a military court in South Africa. They were accused of murdering prisoners who had surrendered and disarmed their weapons, acts that stripped these men of any protection under the laws of war. The defense mounted by the Australians was desperate and dramatic: they claimed they were acting on direct orders from Lord Kitchener, the British commander-in-chief, to "take no prisoners."

The reality, however, proved far more complex. The alleged orders were never written down; they existed only in the volatile memory of a war zone. Kitchener and his staff denied ever issuing such a directive. The Crown prosecutor dismantled the defense by arguing that even if the order had been given, it was an illegal order. No commander has the authority to sanction murder. The court agreed. Morant and Handcock were executed by firing squad. Picton received a sentence of imprisonment, and Witton's death penalty was commuted due to his youth and role as the junior officer.

The outcome left a scar on Australian history that refuses to fade. Many viewed it as a miscarriage of justice, a political sacrifice where lower-ranking officers were executed while Captain Alfred Taylor, their de facto commanding officer known for even more brutal conduct, walked free after being acquitted on all charges. The tragedy of the "Breaker Morant" case highlighted a grim reality: in the chaos of war, subordinates often bear the ultimate penalty for the ambiguous or unspoken policies of their superiors.

The Leipzig Reckoning and the Illusion of Safety

As World War I drew to a close, the world faced the daunting task of holding nations accountable. The Treaty of Versailles mandated that Germany try its own war criminals in a civilian court known as the Reichsgericht in Leipzig. These trials were meant to satisfy the Allies' demand for justice, but they quickly became a theater of legal inconsistency and national humiliation.

One of the most striking cases was that of Kapitänleutnant Karl Neumann, commander of the submarine SM UC-67. In 1917, Neumann had torpedoed and sunk the British hospital ship Dover Castle. When brought to trial, he did not deny sinking the ship. Instead, he argued with frank candor that he was acting on authorization from the German Admiralty. The Imperial German Navy, claiming that the Allies were using hospital ships to transport healthy troops in violation of the Hague Convention, had decreed that U-boat commanders could fire upon them under certain conditions.

The Reichsgericht acquitted Neumann. In a ruling that would later be cited by critics as a failure of justice, the court accepted his defense, stating explicitly: "that all civilized nations recognize the principle that a subordinate is covered by the orders of his superiors." The court found that Neumann had acted in good faith, believing his actions to be lawful under the rules of engagement provided by his government. This acquittal sent shockwaves through the Allied public and media, fueling accusations that Germany was evading true accountability.

Yet, the Leipzig trials were not a blanket amnesty. When defendants could not plausibly claim ignorance or when the criminal nature of the order was too obvious to ignore, the defense crumbled. The sinking of the Canadian hospital ship HMHS Llandovery Castle provided the starkest example. After torpedoing the vessel, Oberleutnants zur See Ludwig Dithmar and John Boldt were ordered by their commanding officer, Helmut Brümmer-Patzig, to use deck guns to fire upon the lifeboats and survivors in the water. The order was explicit: kill everyone so no witnesses remained.

Dithmar and Boldt obeyed. They opened fire on unarmed shipwreck survivors. When tried at Leipzig, they argued they were following orders. The court found them guilty, recognizing that while they had followed a command, the order itself to murder helpless men was manifestly illegal. Despite the deep cultural stigma attached to imprisonment for military officers in pre-1945 Germany, both men were sentenced to serve time in civilian prison. In a twist of fate that underscored the complexity of war crimes accountability, their conviction was later overturned on appeal—not because they were innocent, but because their fugitive commanding officer, Brümmer-Patzig, bore the "lion's share" of the guilt.

The Leipzig experience left a bitter taste for the international community. The German population largely viewed the trials as "victor's justice," pointing out that the Allies had not held their own soldiers to similar standards. This dissatisfaction, however, became a catalyst for change. The inconsistencies and perceived failures of Leipzig convinced the architects of the post-World War II legal order that the defense of superior orders could no longer be allowed to serve as a shield for mass atrocities.

The Nuremberg Turning Point

The end of World War II brought with it a scale of horror that shattered any remaining illusions about obedience. As the full extent of the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes came to light, the Allies knew they could not allow the "I was just following orders" defense to stand as an excuse for genocide.

On August 8, 1945, the London Charter established the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg. This document explicitly nullified the superior orders defense. Article 8 of the Charter stated that acting pursuant to orders does not free a defendant from responsibility, though it might be considered in mitigation of punishment if justice so required. This was a radical departure from centuries of military custom.

The first major test of this new principle came just two months later. On October 8, 1945, General Anton Dostler stood trial before a US military tribunal at the Royal Palace of Caserta in Italy. Dostler had ordered the execution of fifteen captured US soldiers from Operation Ginny II. These men were not combatants caught in battle; they were commandos taken prisoner after a sabotage mission. Their execution was an implementation of Hitler's infamous Commando Order of 1942, which mandated that all Allied commandos be shot immediately without trial.

Dostler admitted to giving the order. He did not deny the facts. Instead, he argued that he could not be held responsible because he was following a direct order from his superiors in Berlin. The tribunal rejected this defense with absolute finality. They ruled that no national order can justify a violation of international law. To follow an illegal order is to become a co-conspirator in the crime. Dostler was found guilty and sentenced to death. On December 1, 1945, he was executed by firing squad in Aversa.

The Dostler case set a precedent that would define the Nuremberg Trials of German generals, officials, and Nazi leaders beginning in November 1945. The principle was codified in Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles, which stated: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." This phrase, "a moral choice," became the crux of the matter. It acknowledged that soldiers are trained to obey, but it insisted that there comes a point where the training must yield to conscience.

This shift did not mean that superiors were irrelevant. If a superior ordered a crime and a subordinate had no realistic opportunity to refuse—facing immediate execution for disobedience—the court might consider this in reducing the sentence. However, the plea could never be used as an absolute shield. The legal bar was clear: criminal orders must not be obeyed.

The Human Cost of Obedience

To understand the gravity of the superior orders doctrine, one must look beyond the legal statutes and into the eyes of the individuals caught in its web. For the soldier on the ground, the decision to disobey an order is often a decision to risk immediate death at the hands of their own comrades or commanders. The military structure relies on chain of command; breaking that chain can lead to court-martial for insubordination or summary execution.

Yet, history shows us that the cost of obedience can be far higher than the cost of defiance. In Nuremberg, in Leipzig, and in countless other conflicts, men were asked to participate in acts that stripped them of their humanity. The defense of superior orders was often a desperate attempt by these individuals to reclaim a sense of self, to say, "I am not responsible; I was a tool." The rejection of this plea by the international community was a painful but necessary affirmation of individual agency. It declared that every human being possesses an inalienable capacity for moral judgment.

The tragedy is that this lesson often comes too late. In the case of the Llandovery Castle, the survivors were already dead before Dithmar and Boldt could be tried. In the execution of the fifteen US soldiers by General Dostler, their lives were extinguished in the name of a policy they did not create. The legal systems that evolved after these events were designed to prevent future generations from hiding behind the uniform.

Evolution to the Present Day

The principle established at Nuremberg has continued to evolve and refine itself through subsequent decades. It was incorporated into the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signaling its acceptance as a global norm rather than just a Western legal concept. The International Criminal Court (ICC), established in the late 20th century, carried this torch forward.

In the landmark case of Prosecutor v Ntaganda, the ICC reaffirmed that superior orders do not exempt individuals from criminal liability. This ruling closed the final loopholes, ensuring that even in the most complex conflicts of the modern era, the defense could not be used to escape justice for war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity.

However, the application of this principle remains fraught with difficulty. In modern asymmetric warfare and counter-insurgency operations, the lines between combatant and civilian are often blurred, and the pressure on soldiers is immense. The psychological burden of carrying out orders that may later be deemed illegal weighs heavily on the conscience of the military profession.

A Legacy of Conscience

The story of superior orders is not just a history of legal rulings; it is a chronicle of humanity's struggle to define its own moral boundaries. From the beheading of Peter von Hagenbach in 1474 to the executions at Nuremberg and the modern tribunals, the trajectory has been clear: obedience is not a substitute for conscience.

The law recognizes that soldiers are trained to follow orders, but it insists that they must also possess the courage to refuse them when those orders violate the most fundamental principles of human dignity. This does not absolve superiors of their responsibility—in fact, command responsibility often carries even greater weight—but it places a burden on every individual soldier.

When we read about these trials, we are reminded that the machinery of war is operated by human beings. These individuals have the capacity to choose. The plea of "just following orders" was once a shield; today, it is recognized as a fallacy that cannot protect those who commit atrocities. The legacy of Nuremberg and the lessons of Leipzig serve as a permanent warning: when the order is criminal, the only lawful response is refusal.

The human cost of ignoring this truth is measured in the lives of the innocent—the prisoners shot on the beach at South Africa, the survivors of the Llandovery Castle fired upon in their lifeboats, the fifteen American soldiers executed in Italy, and the millions who suffered under regimes where obedience was weaponized. Their deaths demand that we never again accept the argument that a uniform absolves one of guilt. The law has spoken, and it demands that every person stand accountable for their own actions.