Jump to: navigation, search
Superior orders, often known as the Nuremberg defense, lawful orders or by the German phrase “Befehl ist Befehl” (“Orders are Orders”), is a plea in a court of law that a person, whether a military member or a civilian, not be held guilty for actions which were ordered by a superior officer or public official.[1]

The superior orders plea is often regarded as the complement to command responsibility.[2]

One of the most noted uses of this plea, or “defense,” was by the accused in the 1945–46 Nuremberg Trials, such that it is also called the “Nuremberg defense”. The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the main victorious Allied forces after World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany. It was during these trials, under the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal which set them up, that the defense of superior orders was no longer considered enough to escape punishment; but merely enough to lessen punishment.[3]

Historically, the plea of superior orders has been used both before and after the Nuremberg Trials, with a notable lack of consistency in various rulings.

Apart from the specific plea of Superior Orders, discussions about how the general concept of superior orders ought to be used, or ought not to be used, have taken place in various arguments, rulings and Statutes that have not necessarily been part of “after the fact” war crimes trials, strictly speaking. Nevertheless these discussions and related events help us understand the evolution of the specific plea of superior orders and the history of its usage.
Contents
[hide] 1 History before 1900 1.1 The trial of Peter von Hagenbach

2 History from 1900 to 2000 2.1 German military trials after World War I
2.2 The Dostler case
2.3 Nuremberg Trials after World War II 2.3.1 The “Nuremberg Defense”…