Conclusion

While the duty of the individual to disobey manifestly illegal orders under international law has become clearer, the international community has not abolished completely the defence of superior orders. International criminal law still recognises the defence of superior orders at least in mitigation of punishment. This fact grants especially lower rank soldiers the possibility of resorting to the defence of superior orders at least for the mitigation of sentences. The duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders and the right of selective conscientious objection should not be regarded as mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the individual’s duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders as well as States’ duty to honour individual conscience may both be seen as the underpinning for selective conscientious objection. Although it may not make sense to use the Nuremberg principles as the grounds of selective conscientious objection when there is a duty to disobey unlawful orders, conscientious objection may be the only possible solution for soldiers facing manifestly unlawful orders. In order to improve the effectiveness of conscientious objection claims, the international community should send a clearer message that there exists the right to conscientious objection under international law.