Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Table of Cases
- Table of Treaties
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT: INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW IN WAR
- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: A FRAMEWORK
- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: BATTLEFIELD ISSUES
- 9 Obedience to Orders, the First Defense
- 10 Command Responsibility and Respondeat Superior
- 11 Ruses and Perfidy
- 12 Torture
- 13 Rules of Engagement
- 14 Targeting
- 15 Attacks on Cultural Property
- 16 The 1980 Certain Conventional Weapons Convention
- 17 Gas, Biological, and Chemical Weapons Treaties
- References
- Index
- References
This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core
10 - Command Responsibility and Respondeat Superior
from LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: BATTLEFIELD ISSUES
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Table of Cases
- Table of Treaties
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT: INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW IN WAR
- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: A FRAMEWORK
- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: BATTLEFIELD ISSUES
- 9 Obedience to Orders, the First Defense
- 10 Command Responsibility and Respondeat Superior
- 11 Ruses and Perfidy
- 12 Torture
- 13 Rules of Engagement
- 14 Targeting
- 15 Attacks on Cultural Property
- 16 The 1980 Certain Conventional Weapons Convention
- 17 Gas, Biological, and Chemical Weapons Treaties
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Command responsibility, also referred to as “superior responsibility,” is the other side of the obedience-to-orders coin. The soldier who obeys a manifestly unlawful order is culpable for any violation of the law of armed conflict (LOAC) resulting. The superior who gave the unlawful order is equally culpable for the subordinate's violation by reason of having given the unlawful order. In the past, it was viewed as a form of the crime of aiding and abetting. No longer. Today, most authorities accept that “[command responsibility] does not mean…that the superior shares the same responsibility as the subordinate who commits the crime…but that the superior bears responsibility for his own omission in failing to act.” The superior is not responsible as an aider and abettor, but is responsible for his neglect of duty in regard to crimes that he knew were committed by his subordinates. “The superior's criminal responsibility flows from the neglect of a specific duty to take the measures that are necessary and reasonable in the given circumstances.”
Respondeat superior, “let the master answer,” is a broader legal concept than command responsibility. In case law and in most LOAC/international humanitarian law (IHL) texts there is no distinction between command responsibility and respondeat superior and the distinction is thematic rather than doctrinal. Command responsibility, as the term suggests, indicates the criminal liability a commander bears for illegal orders that he or she issues.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Law of Armed ConflictInternational Humanitarian Law in War, pp. 381 - 419Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 241
, Essays on the Modern Law of War, 2d ed. (Ardsley, New York: Transnational, 1999), 283
, War and Law Since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 190
, Military Law and Precedents, 2d ed. (Washington: GPO, 1920), 297
, The Leipzig Trials (London: H.F. & G. Witherby, 1921), 151
, “The Trials Before the Leipzig Supreme Court of Germans Accused of War Crimes,” 8
Va. L. Rev. (1921), 1, 11Google Scholar
, “The Yamashita War Crimes Trial: Command Responsibility Then and Now,” 149
Mil. L. Rev. (1995), 293, 295Google Scholar
, “Command Responsibility and a Case Study of the Criminal Responsibility of Israeli Military Commanders for the Pogrom at Shatila and Sabra,” 107
Mil. L. Rev. (1985), 71, 88Google Scholar
, “My Lai and Vietnam: Norms, Myths and Leader Responsibility,” 57
Military L. Rev. (1972), 99, 181Google Scholar
, “Comment, The Years of MacArthur, volume III: MacArthur Unjustifiably Accused of Meting Out ‘Victor's Justice’ in War Crimes Cases,” 113
Military L. Rev. (1986), 203, 206Google Scholar
, Reminiscences (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), 298
, Troy H. Middleton: A Biography (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, 1974), 168–71
, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (New York: Obolensky, 1964), 415
, “Massacre at Biscari: Patton and an American War Crime,” vol. LII, No. 1, The Historian, (Nov. 1989), 24, 29Google Scholar
, Superior Orders in National and International Law (Leyden: Sijthoff, 1976), 131
, Patton Papers, 1940–1945 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), 431
, Crusade in Europe (New York: Doubleday, 1948), 225
, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
, Just and Unjust Wars, 3d ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 310
, The Vietnam War on Trial (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press), 2002, 68
, Medina (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972), 6–7
, “The Superior Responsibility Doctrine in International Law: Historical Continuities, Innovation and Criminality: Can East Timor's Special Panels Bring Militia Leaders to Justice?” 4–2
Int'l Crim. L. Rev. (2004), 141, 157Google Scholar
, “Command Criminal Responsibility: A Plea For A Workable Standard,” 97
Military L. Rev. (1982), 10, 18Google Scholar
, Essays on the Law of War, 2d ed. (Ardsley, NY: Transnational, 1999), 301
, The Yamashita Precedent (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1982), 132
, “Medina: An Essay on the Principles of Criminal Liability for Homicide,” 5
Rutgers-Camden L. J. (1975), 59, 72Google Scholar
, “Yamashita, Medina, and Beyond: Command Responsibility in Contemporary Military Operations,” 164
Military L. Rev. (June 2000), 155, 199Google Scholar
, The My Lai Inquiry (New York: Norton, 1979), 214, 227
LRTWC 1 (London: U.N. War Crimes Commission, 1947), at 86
, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. V, Trial of Lieutenant-General Shigeru Sawada and Three Others (London: U.N. War Crimes Commission, 1948), 1
and , Crimes of Obedience (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 209
and , The Tokyo International Military Tribunal: A Reappraisal (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 304
, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 238
, The Soldier and the State (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1957), 73
, “Soldiers' Refusal to Heed West Bank Evacuation Orders Roils Israel,” The Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 8, 2007, 1
Google Scholar
, The Ethics of War & Peace, 2d ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999), 143
, , ed., The Rommel Papers (London: Collins, 1953), 321
, The Transformation of War (New York: Free Press, 1991), 89
, Obeying Orders (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1999), 313
, “Superior Orders, Nuclear Warfare, and Conscience,” in , ed., War and Morality (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1970), 124
, Military Obedience (The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1978), 279
, , and , eds., Commentary on the Additional Protocols (Geneva: ICRC/Martinus Nijhoff, 1987), 1007
, “Command Responsibility: A Call to Realign Doctrine with Principles,” 20–1
Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. (2004), 71, 80Google Scholar
, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 85
, International Crimes and the Ad Hoc Tribunals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 298–310
, “New Approaches to International Justice in Cambodia and East Timor,” 845
Int'l Rev. of the Red Cross (2002), 93–119Google Scholar
, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 206–7
, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1992), 239
, “Finding a Proper Role for Command Responsibility,” 5–3
J. of Int'l Crim. Justice (July 2007), 599, 606Google Scholar
and , “Current Developments in the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals,” 6–3
J. of Int'l. Crim. Justice (1998) 569, 576Google Scholar
, The Case of General Yamashita (New York: Octagon Books, 1971), 247
, “Understanding Mens Rea in Command Responsibility, 5–3
J. of Int'l Criminal Justice (July 2007), 638–57Google Scholar