Military Obedience: Rhetoric and Reality

Abstract

The military institution is justified by the existence of independent political communities with sometimes competing interests. But while nation-states are justified in maintaining military forces to protect their interests, they do not have carte blanche in how they use those forces. The laws of war, as laid down in the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties, strictly limit when and how military force may be used. Furthermore, the military in most Western countries claims to be bound by high moral and legal professional standards.¹ According to military rhetoric, military personnel are supposed to be people of courage, integrity, obedience, honour and discipline. They are bound to follow the laws of war and are obliged to disobey orders that violate the laws of war. According to the Australian Defence Force website, for example, the good officer ‘complies with directives, orders and policies in a positive and mature manner, but challenges and reports unethical/illegal orders or behaviour’.² Similarly, the US West Point Military Academy Cadet Disciplinary Code states: ‘cadets are expected to exercise good judgment at all times. These include situations not covered by instructions or cases in which orders are obviously illegal or inappropriate’.³ Military law in most countries supports this view: ‘just following orders’ is no longer accepted as a legitimate defence in cases where illegal or immoral orders have been carried out.⁴