Poll: US Troops Are Prepared to Disobey Unlawful Orders
80% of active-duty military service-members in the United States understand their moral and legal duty to uphold the US Constitution, human rights and humanitarian law even if given orders to violate these standards, according to new survey data from University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab.
Members of the US military are required under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, but also required under international standards and the US Courts Martial Manual to disobey orders that are ‘manifestly unlawful’ - that is, so unlawful that any ordinary person would recognize them to be wrong. This June, Human Security Lab tested how well prepared troops are to draw that line.
The poll, fielded between June 13th and June 30th, and conducted in collaboration with global research firm RIWI, asked 818 active-duty service-members in the United States to describe in their own words the conditions under which they would find an order so manifestly unlawful that they would be forced to disobey. A faculty-student team analyzed the responses and found 80% of respondents were able to name such conditions. Only 9% stated they would “obey any order;” 9% wrote in they “didn’t know,” and only 2% wrote in “no comment.”
Of the rest, the largest group of respondents (40%) responded by writing in examples of orders they would refuse to follow. The most frequently-named example was harm to civilians, but troops also frequently mentioned torturing prisoners, harming children, killing or persecuting anyone arbitrarily, or “turning on my fellow Americans.” Many specifically referenced the fear that they would be asked to commit human rights abuses against the US population.
Other respondents described the legal standards they would consider in determining the lawfulness of an other, mentioning that they would disobey orders violating the US Consitution and or international human rights law and the international law of armed conflict. More troops referenced international law than referenced domestic law, with some stating that they could not trust domestic law as a standard because “the new laws might allow” human rights violations.
Many emphasized their duty to disobey orders that would require them to violate the Geneva Conventions, or even basic standards of morality. One wrote, “Orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.”
The survey results are detailed further in a new article in The Conversation written by Professor Charli Carpenter and PhD Candidate Geraldine Santoso, which also pointed to the fact that calls to the GI Rights Hotline by service-members concerned that they might be ordered to violate US citizens’ human rights had spiked in recent months.
According to Professor Carpenter, who designed the survey, “These data are especially impressive in light of the many psychological and institutional pressures troops are under to obey orders and the fact that very few of them receive comprehensive international legal training. The fact that so many service-members not only understand their duty to disobey but are able to think ahead how they might do so is a heartening sign in an era where it is often perceived that international law has little power.”