Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: Soldiers, war crimes and "I was just following orders" ( Answered 5 out of 5 stars,   0 Comments )
Question  
Subject: Soldiers, war crimes and "I was just following orders"
Category: Relationships and Society > Law
Asked by: natalya-ga
List Price: $10.00
Posted: 24 Mar 2003 14:58 PST
Expires: 23 Apr 2003 15:58 PDT
Question ID: 180417
When a soldier is a member of an invading force in a war that is not
legally sanctioned, according to international law, can that soldier
plead 'not guilty' because they were "just following orders"?

Request for Question Clarification by justaskscott-ga on 24 Mar 2003 18:08 PST
Are you defining participation in an invasion that is not legally
sanctioned as a "war crime", for purposes of this question?

More basically, are you interested in whether ordering an invasion
that is not legally sanctioned is a war crime?

Or are you interested only in an answer that relates to war crimes
that occur during such an invasion upon orders from higher officers?

Request for Question Clarification by justaskscott-ga on 24 Mar 2003 18:09 PST
I was imprecise in the first question.  What I meant to say was: "Are
you defining the ordering of an invasion that is not legally
sanctioned as a 'war crime', for purposes of this question?"

Clarification of Question by natalya-ga on 24 Mar 2003 18:32 PST
Yes, for purpose of this question, I am defining the ordering of an
invasion that is not legally
sanctioned as a war crime.

For the purpose of this question I am defining participation in an
invasion that is not legally sanctioned as a war crime.

In regard to this question I am not interested in war crimes that
happen during an invasion.

Based on this, I am asking, would "I was just following orders" be a
solid defense? Are there any precedents for example?
Answer  
Subject: Re: Soldiers, war crimes and "I was just following orders"
Answered By: justaskscott-ga on 24 Mar 2003 20:40 PST
Rated:5 out of 5 stars
 
Hello natalya-ga,

This answer is based on your premise that ordering or participation in
an invasion that is not legally sanctioned is a war crime.  If your
premise is incorrect, then the answer may in turn be incorrect. 
(Also, please note that I am a Google Answers researcher, not an
international law expert.)

Article 23 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
provides that:

"1.  The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has
been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of
a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that
person of criminal responsibility unless:

(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the
Government or the superior in question;

(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
 
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.

2.  For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or
crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful."

"Part 3. General Principles of Criminal Law"
United Nations: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/3.htm

So, under this statute, "following orders" can be a defense only under
certain specific circumstances.

However, other tribunals established prior to the International
Criminal Court have had different rules.  The International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has the following rule, in Article
7 of its Statute:

"The fact that an accused person acted pursuant to an order of a
Government or of a superior shall not relieve him of criminal
responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if
the International Tribunal determines that justice so requires."

"Article 7 Individual criminal responsibility"
Amended Statute of the International Tribunal
United Nations: International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia
http://www.un.org/icty/basic/statut/stat2000.htm#7

A provision of Article 6 of the Statute of the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda is practically identical.

"Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal -- Article 6:
Individual Criminal Responsibility"
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [United Nations]
http://www.ictr.org/wwwroot/ENGLISH/basicdocs/statute.html

Under these rules, it seems clear that "superior orders" are not a
defense, but might mitigate the punishment.

A comparison and discussion of these rules can be found here.

"Superior orders and the International Criminal Court: Justice
delivered or justice denied" (31-12-1999  International Review of the
Red Cross No. 836, p. 785-794 by Charles Garraway)
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList320/4F89CC080CE0E792C1256B66005DD767

You might wish to note that the United States currently opposes the
International Criminal Court, though its citizens might be subject to
it in certain circumstances.

"The United States and the International Criminal Court: A Briefing",
by Anthony Dworkin (May 15, 2002)
Crimes of War Project
http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-us-icc.html

- justaskscott-ga


Search terms used:

"just following orders" "international law"
"superior orders" "war crimes"
"united states" "international criminal court"

Clarification of Answer by justaskscott-ga on 24 Mar 2003 20:47 PST
I think I should add this concluding paragraph:  So, depending on the
court, and possibly on the circumstances, "just following orders"
might or might not be a defense to a "war crime".  If ordering or
participation in an invasion that is not legally sanctioned is a war
crime, then following orders to participate in it might be defensible
in the International Criminal Court, but not in other tribunals since
the time of the Nuremberg tribunal.

Please let me know if you do need a specific precedent.  My feeling is
that this would necessitate a new question, since it would require
proof of the premise that you indicated was definitely correct for
purposes of the current question.  But if you feel differently, and
require a precedent, I would try to find one.

Clarification of Answer by justaskscott-ga on 24 Mar 2003 20:56 PST
Sorry to post a second clarification, but I should mention that I have
not seen (but only heard about) the previous answer to this question.

If I have accidentally repeated a problem that you saw in the previous
answer, please let me know, and I will try to fix it.

Request for Answer Clarification by natalya-ga on 25 Mar 2003 01:42 PST
No that's cool, thanks for the well researched answer.

Clarification of Answer by justaskscott-ga on 25 Mar 2003 05:01 PST
Thanks for the nice rating!
natalya-ga rated this answer:5 out of 5 stars

Comments  
There are no comments at this time.

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy