Only Following Orders? The Superior Orders Defense

At Nuremberg and later trials, many defendants argued that they had only been following orders from superiors whom they were legally bound to obey. If law is simply the command of a sovereign, this defense seems strong. But Article 8 of the London Charter declared that acting under orders 'shall not free him from responsibility', though it might be considered in reducing punishment.

In 1950 the UN International Law Commission restated this as Nuremberg Principle IV: following orders does not relieve a person of responsibility, 'provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him'. This rule reflects a natural law insight: individuals retain a conscience that no command can override.

Yet it also recognizes real pressures, since a soldier facing immediate death may lack a genuine choice. The defense was raised again by Adolf Eichmann in his 1961 trial in Jerusalem and rejected. Psychological research in the 1960s showed how readily ordinary people obey authority, which makes the principle both important and demanding.