Military Law Review Vol 54

A soldier obeys illegal orders, thinking them lawful. When should we excuse his misconduct as based in reasonable error? How can courts convincingly convict the soldier's superior officer when, after Nuremberg, criminal orders are expressed through winks and nods, hints and insinuations? Can our notions of the soldier's "due obedience," designed for the Roman legionnaire, be brought into closer harmony with current understandings of military conflict in the contemporary world? Mark J. Osiel answers these questions in light of new learning about atrocity and combat cohesion, as well as changes in warfare and the nature of military conflict. Sources of atrocity are far more varied than current law assumes, and such variations display consistent patterns. The law now generally requires that soldiers resolve all doubts about the legality of a superior's order in favor of obedience. It excuses compliance with an illegal order unless the illegality - as with flagrant atrocities - would be immediately obvious to anyone. But these criteria are often in conflict and at odds with the law's underlying principles and policies. Combat and peace operations now depend more on tactical imagination, self-discipline, and loyalty to immediate comrades than on immediate, unreflective adherence to the letter of superiors' orders, backed by threat of formal punishment. The objective of military law is to encourage deliberative judgment. This can be done, Osiel suggests, in ways that enhance the accountability of our military forces, in both peace operations and more traditional conflicts, while maintaining their effectiveness. Osiel seeks to "civilianize" military law while building on soldiers' own internal ideals of professional virtuousness. He returns to the ancient ideal of martial honor, reinterpreting it in light of new conditions, arguing that it should be implemented through realistic training in which legal counsel plays an enlarged role rather than by threat of legal prosecuti

The book systematically analyses the relationship and interaction between rules of engagement (ROE) and the legal framework regulating armed conflicts, both at the international and national levels. At the international level, the relationship between ROE and human rights law and international humanitarian law is explored. At the national level, the book relates ROE to (comparative) criminal law. A separate chapter analyses the complex relationship between self-defence law and rules of engagement. It is the first monograph to comprehensively examine these issues and to analyse how ROE interact with the various sources of the (international) law of military operations, both in terms of the law as a source for these rules and how the law is reflected and implemented through them. In doing so, and based on the author's own experience, the book provides examples of how complicated, often controversial issues of law can be resolved while keeping the rules understandable at all levels of military operations. Aimed at both scholars and practitioners, the book provides a bridge between the academic world and the operational world. It provides new insights for both of those audiences in terms of understanding how the law applies to - and through - the rules on the use of force for military operations.