What Constitutes A Lawful Order9 min read
A lawful order is a directive that is authorized by a person’s rank within an organization, or the law. The order must also be reasonable, and not violate any other laws.
A lawful order typically comes from a supervisor or commanding officer, and must be obeyed by all members of an organization. Soldiers are required to follow lawful orders from their commanders, even if they may disagree with the order.
There are a few exceptions to the rule of obeying lawful orders. If an order violates the law, or is considered to be immoral or unethical, it may be refused. Additionally, an order may be refused if it puts the individual or others in danger.
Anyone who refuses a lawful order can be disciplined or even arrested. However, if an order is refused and the individual is later found to be in the right, they cannot be punished.
Table of Contents
What constitutes a lawful order UCMJ?
A lawful order is a directive given by a superior officer that must be obeyed. The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) defines lawful orders as those that are “not contrary to the law of land, the Constitution, or an act of Congress.”
A lawful order must be specific and unambiguous. It must also be reasonable under the circumstances. The order must be something that the subordinate can actually carry out. Finally, it must be given in a timely manner.
If an order is unlawful, a service member can refuse to obey it. However, doing so can result in disciplinary action. In some cases, disobeying a lawful order can also be a criminal offense.
What makes something a lawful order in the military?
What is a lawful order in the military?
The term lawful order has a specific legal definition in the context of military law. An order is considered lawful if it is authorized by the proper military authority, it is not illegal, and it is not contrary to any specific regulation or order.
An order must also be specific and unambiguous. It must state what is to be done, by whom, and when. If an order is vague or ambiguous, it may not be lawful.
Finally, an order must be reasonable. It must be within the scope of the military mission and it must be achievable. An order that is impossible or illegal is not lawful.
The military is a hierarchical organization, and orders must flow down the chain of command. An order that is given by someone who is not authorized to give orders is not lawful.
An order can be oral or written, but it must be communicated in a manner that is understood by the person receiving it.
What are the consequences of disobeying a lawful order?
Disobeying a lawful order is a serious offense, and can result in disciplinary action, including discharge from the military.
What defines an unlawful order?
An unlawful order is an order that is illegal according to military law. Orders can be unlawful for a variety of reasons, including being illegal because they are unconstitutional, violate international law, or are otherwise illegal.
Military law is a complex and nuanced system, and there are a variety of reasons why an order might be unlawful. Some orders might be unconstitutional, meaning they violate the Constitution of the United States. For example, an order to engage in racial profiling or to detain American citizens without charge would be unconstitutional.
Other orders might be illegal because they violate international law. For example, an order to engage in torture or to launch a nuclear strike would be illegal under international law.
Finally, some orders might be illegal for other reasons, such as being outside the scope of a soldier’s duties or being excessively cruel or inhumane.
If a soldier is given an unlawful order, they are not obligated to follow it. In fact, they may be required to refuse the order or even disobey it.
If you have questions about whether an order is unlawful, you should consult with a military lawyer.
What is the difference between a direct order and a lawful order?
There is a big difference between a direct order and a lawful order. A direct order is an instruction given to someone that must be followed immediately, while a lawful order is an instruction that must be followed according to the law.
A direct order is a request for action that must be carried out without question. For example, a direct order from a superior in the military might be to take a certain action, even if it goes against your own personal beliefs. A direct order from a boss in a company might be to do something immediately, without discussing the matter further.
A lawful order, on the other hand, must be followed according to the law. For example, a lawful order from a police officer might be to stop your car and show your driver’s license and registration. A lawful order from a judge might be to appear in court to answer a charge.
There are some important differences between a direct order and a lawful order. A direct order must be followed immediately, while a lawful order may give you some time to carry out the order. A direct order is not necessarily lawful, while a lawful order must be followed according to the law. Finally, a direct order can be given by anyone, while a lawful order can only be given by someone who is authorized to give orders according to the law.
Do soldiers have to follow unlawful orders?
Do soldiers have to follow unlawful orders? This is a question that has been debated for centuries. The general consensus is that soldiers are obligated to follow lawful orders, but are not required to follow unlawful orders. This is based on the principle of obedience to superior orders.
The idea of obedience to superior orders is found in the 18th century military treatise, The Art of War, by Baron de Jomini. He wrote that a soldier must obey the lawful orders of his superiors, even if he disagrees with them. This principle was later codified into international law with the adoption of the Hague Convention of 1907.
The Hague Convention of 1907 is a treaty that codifies the laws of war. It contains a provision that states that a soldier must obey the lawful orders of his superiors, even if he disagrees with them. This provision was later reaffirmed in the Geneva Convention of 1949.
The principle of obedience to lawful orders is based on the idea that a soldier is a part of a military hierarchy. The soldier is obligated to obey the orders of his superiors, up the chain of command, to the point where it would be illegal to disobey.
This principle is not without its limitations. A soldier is not obligated to obey an unlawful order, such as an order to commit a war crime. In addition, a soldier can refuse to obey an order if it would cause him to violate his conscience or the principles of international law.
Some people argue that the principle of obedience to lawful orders should be abolished. They argue that it gives too much discretion to military commanders, and that it leads to abuses, such as the My Lai Massacre.
Others argue that the principle of obedience to lawful orders is necessary to maintain discipline in the military. They argue that it is essential for soldiers to be able to trust their superiors to give them lawful orders.
Ultimately, it is up to the individual soldier to decide whether to obey an order or not. He must balance the obligation to obey lawful orders with his own conscience and the principles of international law.
Can an NCO give a lawful order?
Can an NCO give a lawful order?
In short, yes an NCO can give a lawful order. The key is that the order must be lawful. An NCO is not a commanding officer, and therefore cannot give orders that would violate the UCMJ or be otherwise unlawful.
NCOs are essential to the proper functioning of the military. They provide the backbone of the enlisted force, and play a critical role in training and leading soldiers. Their rank and experience make them ideally suited to carry out many of the critical tasks that keep the military running.
One of an NCO’s most important responsibilities is to issue orders to subordinates. This can be a daunting task, but it is essential that orders be clear, concise, and lawful. An NCO must ensure that all orders comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other applicable regulations.
If an order is unlawful, an NCO has a duty to refuse to obey it. This can be a difficult decision, but it is important that NCOs uphold the law and maintain the integrity of the military.
Ultimately, it is up to the commanding officer to decide whether an order is lawful. An NCO can provide input and advice, but the final decision rests with the CO. If there is any doubt as to the legality of an order, an NCO should consult with a senior officer or legal counsel.
The bottom line is that an NCO can give a lawful order, but must take care to ensure that it is appropriate and complies with the UCMJ.
Can military refuse unlawful orders?
Can military refuse unlawful orders?
Yes, military personnel can refuse to obey an unlawful order, but there may be consequences for doing so.
Orders from a superior officer are typically considered to be lawful, unless they are blatantly illegal or unconstitutional. However, there may be times when an order is unlawful, but the soldier receiving it is unaware of that fact. In these cases, the soldier has the right to refuse to obey the order.
If a soldier believes that an order is unlawful, he or she should seek clarification from a senior officer or legal counsel. If it is determined that the order is in fact unlawful, the soldier has the right to refuse to follow it.
However, refusing an order can have serious consequences. Soldiers who disobey lawful orders may be subject to disciplinary action, including dismissal from the military.
