Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Genesis and Significance of the Law of War “Rendulic Rule”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Honest Errors? Combat Decision-Making 75 Years After the Hostage Case

Abstract

The notion that in armed conflict commanders are judged only according to information reasonably available to them at the time of decision-making found early and notorious application in the post-Second World War prosecution of Generaloberst Lothar Rendulic known as the Hostage case. A tribunal of American judges drawn from civilian US legal quarters famously acquitted Rendulic for devastation carried out in the erroneous belief that Soviet forces were pursuing his retreat across Norwegian Finnmark. This chapter traces the legal genesis of the so-called Rendulic Rule and evaluates its modern legal significance. Although the Hostage judgment provided little in the way of legal evidence of the rule and traced its source in only very general terms, the Rendulic Rule has since matured into a well-settled aspect of the law of war. States have incorporated it into primary rules of conduct regulating hostilities and rely on it extensively in law of war instruction and implementation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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.

    See Heller 2011, p 4. These US proceedings tried 177 defendants over a period of 28 months. Ibid.

  2. 2.

    Harvard Law School, The Thirteen Nuremberg Trials, Nuremberg Trials Project, https://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/trials [accessed 1 April 2023]; United Nations War Crimes Commission, United States v. Wilhelm List, et al., Trial Judgment, 1949, XI Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals 757, 761 (Hostage Case).

  3. 3.

    Headquarters, European Command, Order Constituting Tribunal V, General Orders No. 70 by Military Government Ordinance No. 7, 28 June 1947.

  4. 4.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, p 761.

  5. 5.

    Ibid., p 762.

  6. 6.

    Iowa Judicial Branch, Iowa Courts History, Past Supreme Court Justices, https://www.iowacourts.gov/for-the-public/educational-resources-and-services/iowa-courts-history/past-justices/charles-f-wennerstrum/ [accessed 1 April 2023].

  7. 7.

    Charles F. Wennerstrum, 96; Served on Iowa’s High Court, NY Times, 6 June 1986.

  8. 8.

    Hostage Case, p 763.

  9. 9.

    Taylor 1993, p ix; Parks 1998, p 746.

  10. 10.

    Taylor 1993, p ix; Parks 1998, p 746.

  11. 11.

    Taylor 1993, pp x, xi.

  12. 12.

    Parks 1998, p 746.

  13. 13.

    Taylor 1949, p vii.

  14. 14.

    Barrett 2010, p 586.

  15. 15.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, p 769.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., p 770.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    Ibid.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., p 836.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., p 839.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., p 759.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., p 760.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., p 786.

  24. 24.

    Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 Oct. 1907, 36 Stat. 2247, 1 Bevans 631 [HC IV].

  25. 25.

    States adopted the first round of the Hague Conventions in 1899. See, e.g., Hague Convention (II) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land with Annex of Regulations, July 29, 1899, 32 Stat. 1803, 1 Bevans 247.

  26. 26.

    Hostage Case, above note 3, p 776.

  27. 27.

    Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, and Yugoslavia, though Second World War belligerents, were not Parties to the Fourth Hague Convention during the war.

  28. 28.

    HC IV, above note 26, Article 2.

  29. 29.

    United Nations 1948, p 497. For criticism of this ruling see Watts 2009, pp 402–403.

  30. 30.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, p 787.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., p 834. See also Reiter 2010, pp 136–138 (relating circumstance leading to Finland’s armistice in the Continuation War with the Soviet Union).

  33. 33.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, p 834.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., p 836.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., p 839.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., p 841. The tribunal controversially rejected this argument with respect to executions of civilians as reprisals in the Balkans in another portion of the judgment. Ibid., pp 1252–1253.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., p 857.

  38. 38.

    Ibid (citing Oppenheim, International Law).

  39. 39.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, p 858 (citing United States 1940, para 347; Great Britain 1907, pp 17–18. The copy of the US Field Manual uploaded to the United States Library of Congress lines through the superior orders defense language noting “see change”.

  40. 40.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, p 886.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., p 887 (quoting Fenwick 1934, p 567).

  42. 42.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, p 887. The defense team recounted General Sheridan’s observation of the Shenandoah Valley, “A crow flying across it would have had to carry its own rations”. Ibid.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., p 887.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., pp 889–890.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., pp 1226–1227.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., p 1174.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., pp 1174–1175.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., p 1234.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., pp 1234–1235.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., p 1235 (emphasis added).

  51. 51.

    Ibid. Today the sources of international law are generally agreed to include:

    international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and [with limits] judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

    Statute of the International Court of Justice, June 26, 1945, Article 38, 33 UNTS 993.

  52. 52.

    Akehurst 1976, pp 813–814 (quoting Orinoco Steamship Company, 9 RIAA 180, 200). Although it appears in the text of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the term “civilized” is no longer an operative aspect of the definition of general principles of law. See Thirlway 2014, p 95.

  53. 53.

    Gaja 2020.

  54. 54.

    See, e.g., United Nations, International Law Commission, Third Report on General Principles of Law, Marcelo Vázquez-Bermúdez, Special Rapporteur, A/CN.4/753, 18 April 2022 (noting disagreement whether general principles of law can be developed and drawn directly from international legal contexts).

  55. 55.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, p 1235.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., p 787.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., p 1236.

  58. 58.

    See discussion above accompanying nn. 39–41.

  59. 59.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, pp 1253–1254.

  60. 60.

    The US Department of Defense views imperative necessity as requiring more than the mere convenience or usefulness that unconditioned necessity involves. See United States 2016, para 5.17.2.1.

  61. 61.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, p 1255 (quoting Germany 1915, p 72). The judgment cites to pp 53–55. The edition consulted for this chapter, which appears to be that cited by the tribunal, finds the quoted passage at p 72.

  62. 62.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, p 1255.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., pp 1255–1256.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., p 1295.

  65. 65.

    Ibid.

  66. 66.

    Ibid.

  67. 67.

    Ibid.

  68. 68.

    Ibid.

  69. 69.

    Ibid.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., p 1296.

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    Ibid.

  73. 73.

    Ibid.

  74. 74.

    Ibid.

  75. 75.

    See Chaps. 3 and 4.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., pp 1296–1297 (citing HC IV, above n. 26, Article 23(g)).

  77. 77.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, p 1297.

  78. 78.

    Ibid.

  79. 79.

    See Chap. 8.

  80. 80.

    Hostage Case, above n. 3, p 1235.

  81. 81.

    United Nations War Crimes Commission, United States v. Von Leeb, et al., Trial Judgment, Case No. 12, X Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals (1949) [X High Command Case].

  82. 82.

    Ibid., p 40.

  83. 83.

    Ibid.

  84. 84.

    United Nations War Crimes Commission, United States v. Von Leeb, et al., Trial Judgment, Case No. 12, XI Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals 628 (1949).

  85. 85.

    See Chap. 5.

  86. 86.

    Heller 2011, p 3.

  87. 87.

    Ibid.

  88. 88.

    The US Department of Defense Law of War Manual recites verbatim the Additional Protocol I definition of military objective stated in Article 52(2). United States 2016, para 5.6.3. The Manual does not expressly identify the Additional Protocol as the source of the customary rule. In fact, it cites instead the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons. United States 2016, para 5.6.3 (citing Protocol (to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects) on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on May 3, 1996, Article 2(6), 2048 UNTS 133. However, the latter treaty expresses the rule with respect to landmines identically to the Additional Protocol’s more general rule and the Manual counsels the military objective standard as applying far more broadly than the limited context of the Amended Protocol II. United States 2016, para 5.6.3.

  89. 89.

    Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, June 8, 1977, Article 52(2), 1125 UNTS 3 (emphasis added) [hereinafter AP I].

  90. 90.

    Protocol (to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects) on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on May 3, 1996, 2048 UNTS 133.

  91. 91.

    United States 2016, para 5.6.7.2.

  92. 92.

    AP I, above n. 88, Article 85.

  93. 93.

    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, Article 8(2)(b)(iv), 2187 UNTS 90 (emphases added) [hereinafter Rome Statute].

  94. 94.

    AP I, above n. 88, Articles 86–87; Rome Statute, above n. 91, Article 28(a)–(b).

  95. 95.

    AP I, above n. 88, Article 86 (emphasis added).

  96. 96.

    Ibid., Article 87 (emphasis added).

  97. 97.

    Rome Statute, above n. 91, Article 28(a)(i) (emphasis added).

  98. 98.

    Ibid., Article 28(b)(1).

  99. 99.

    See Chap. 8.

  100. 100.

    DeSon 2015, p 116. (citing S. Exec. Rep. No. 110-22, at 13 (2008) (CCW Protocols III (incendiary weapons) and IV (blinding laser weapons)); S. Exec. Rep. No. 106-2, at 20 (2009) (CCW Amended Protocol II (landmines and booby traps)).

  101. 101.

    Canada 1990, p 464.

  102. 102.

    See e.g. Australia 1991, p 473; Italy 1986, p 439; Netherlands 1987, p 300; Spain 1989, p 392; Switzerland 1982, p 409; United Kingdom 1998, p 76.

  103. 103.

    United States 1956.

  104. 104.

    United States 2016, para 2.2.3.3.

  105. 105.

    United States 2016, para 5.3.2.

  106. 106.

    See Milanovic 2020 (offering preliminary thoughts on the availability of mistake of fact as a defense in state responsibility).

References

  • Akehurst M (1976) Equity and general principles of law. International & Comparative Law Quarterly 25:801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australia (1991) Australia, Statement on ratification of AP I, Jun. 21, 1991, in 1642 UNTS 473

    Google Scholar 

  • Austria (1983) Austria, Statement on ratification of Additional Protocol I, Feb. 13, 1983, in 1289 UNTS 303

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett J (2010) Henry T. King, at case, and on the Nuremberg case. Case Western Reserve Law Review 60:583

    Google Scholar 

  • Canada (1990) Canada, Statement on ratification of Additional Protocol I, Nov. 20, 1990, in 1591 UNTS 462, 464.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSon J (2015) Automating the right stuff—the hidden ramifications of ensuring autonomous aerial weapon systems comply with international humanitarian law. Air Force Law Review 72:85

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick C (1934) International Law. D. Appleton-Century Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaja G (2020) General principles of law. Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Germany (2015) The war book of the German general staff: being “the usages of war on land” (Morgan JH (trans.))

    Google Scholar 

  • Great Britain, War Office (1907) Manual of Military Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller K (2011) The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Italy (1986) Italy, Statement on ratification of Additional Protocol I, Feb. 27, 1986, in 1425 UNTS 438, 439

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanovic M (2020) Mistake of fact. EJIL Talk! (14 January 2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • Netherlands (1987) Netherlands, Statement on Ratification of Additional Protocol I, Jun. 26, 1987, in 1477 UNTS 300

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks W (1998) Telford Taylor 1908-1998. International Review of the Red Cross 80:746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter D (2010) How Wars End. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spain (1989) Spain, Statement on ratification of Additional Protocol I, Apr. 21, 1989, in 1537 UNTS 389, 392

    Google Scholar 

  • Switzerland (1982) Switzerland, Statement on ratification of AP I, Feb. 17, 1982, in 1271 UNTS 409

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor T (1949) Final Report to the Secretary of the Army on The Nuernberg War Crimes Trials under Control Council Law No. 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor T (1993) The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir. Skyhorse Publishing, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway H (2014) The Sources of International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts S (2009) Reciprocity and the law of war. Harvard International Law Journal 50:365

    Google Scholar 

  • United Kingdom (1998) United Kingdom, Statement on ratification of Additional Protocol I, Jan. 28, 1998, in 2020 UNTS 75, 76

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Defense, Office of General Counsel (2016) Law of War Manual

    Google Scholar 

  • United States, Department of the Army (1956) Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations War Crimes Commission (1948), Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Volume 22

    Google Scholar 

Other Documents

  • United Nations, International Law Commission, Third Report on General Principles of Law, Marcelo Vázquez-Bermúdez, Special Rapporteur, A/CN.4/753, 18 Apr. 2022

    Google Scholar 

  • United States, War Department, Field manual 27-10, Rules of Land Warfare (Oct. 1, 1940)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, USA

    Sean Watts

  2. Lieber Institute for Law and Warfare, 606 Thayer Rd, West Point, NY, 10996, USA

    Sean Watts

Authors
  1. Sean Watts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean Watts .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for International and Operational Law, Swedish Defence University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Nobuo Hayashi

  2. Faculty of Social Studies, VID Specialized University, Oslo, Norway

    Carola Lingaas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Watts, S. (2024). The Genesis and Significance of the Law of War “Rendulic Rule”. In: Hayashi, N., Lingaas, C. (eds) Honest Errors? Combat Decision-Making 75 Years After the Hostage Case. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-611-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-611-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-610-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-611-6

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation