war crimes

What is a good source of reading or information about war crimes, and
who is responsible ?

During war, a lot of the actions or behavior of people in the military is excused, because they are following orders and being directed by others. How far up in rank does that go ? Can a general have no responsibility, as long as a senior officer instructed him to do it ?

For that matter, when your civilian boss instructs you to do something, how far does the responsibility go ?

A lot of senior executives get away with illegal acts, such as bribes, and the company is the one that pays the fine, and they have no responsibility. But other times, they do get prosecuted.

What is a good source of reading or information about war crimes, and
who is responsible ?

During war, a lot of the actions or behavior of people in the military is excused, because they are following orders and being directed by others. How far up in rank does that go ? Can a general have no responsibility, as long as a senior officer instructed him to do it ? Originally Posted by VitaMan

It goes all the way down to the soldier who did it, even if he acted under duress:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dražen_Erdemović

During war, a lot of the actions or behavior of people in the military is excused, because they are following orders and being directed by others. Originally Posted by VitaMan

You left out an essential element .... "lawful orders" ...

UCMJ Art. 92:

“Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

That is the whole point. The person charged to carry out the act has to figure out what is lawful, and what is not ? If it comes from a commanding officer, they would usually figure it is such - or are they supposed to get into a discussion or argument with the commanding officer ?

That is the whole point. The person charged to carry out the act has to figure out what is lawful, and what is not ? Originally Posted by VitaMan

Given that before WW2 the idea of war crimes didn't exist this whole concept is yet to be fully developed. If the Nuremberg Trials are at least any indication, I think the best answer is and always will be is that a war crime is whatever the winners want to place on the losers.

If it comes from a commanding officer, they would usually figure it is such - or are they supposed to get into a discussion or argument with the commanding officer ? Originally Posted by VitaMan

Disobeying a direct order in any military is always going to result in a bad day for the disobeying party.

https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/wh...obey-an-order/

This is another area which has yet to be tested. Sweden is the only country Im aware of that specifically gives individual soldiers any rights to disobey a direct order they feel is illegal.

Round up the civilians, line them up at the edge of the trench, and shoot them.
What are you going to do?
Disobey the order and suffer the consequences that will probably mean being shot dead by the person that is ordered to shoot you?
Shoot them and try to claim you are not a criminal but a soldier obeying an order?

Half of your platoon just got blown to small pieces by an IED and you shoot the bastard that set it off even though he was not armed; is that a war crime? Only under Obama.

If you are a soldier, good luck with that.