Law Atlas

How The Law Decides
Sign In
Text size
100%
Theme
Doctrines

Command Responsibility

International and Comparative Law Doctrine

Citation Formats

General Reference

APA Style

BibTeX

Origin Traceable to the 1474 trial of Peter von Hagenbach and the nineteenth-century Lieber Code, with the modern legal standard set by the Yamashita case, Application of Yamashita (1946).

Command responsibility is the legal doctrine of hierarchical accountability for war crimes under which a commanding military officer or a superior civilian official can be held legally responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by subordinates, including through a failure to prevent or punish those acts, not only through direct orders to commit them. The idea has ancient roots, reaching back to The Art of War, attributed to Sun Tzu in the fifth century BC, which discussed the duty of a commander to see that soldiers observed the customary laws of war, and its first formal legal application came in 1474 in the trial of Peter von Hagenbach before the Holy Roman Empire for atrocities committed by his soldiers during a military occupation. The United States Lieber Code of 1863, adopted during the Civil War, codified command responsibility in American military law by holding commanders responsible for war crimes committed by their subordinates, and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 gave the doctrine an international legal foundation. The doctrine was refined further at the Nuremberg trials and later tribunals, which produced standards such as the Yamashita standard, requiring commanders to take reasonable steps to prevent and punish crimes by their subordinates, and the Medina standard, which extended similar liability to American officers.

Facts
Origin Period
Traceable to the 1474 trial of Peter von Hagenbach and the nineteenth-century Lieber Code, with the modern legal standard set by the Yamashita case, Application of Yamashita (1946). 1
Core Principle
A commanding officer can be held criminally liable for war crimes committed by subordinates, both for ordering such acts and for failing to prevent or punish them. 1
Cross-Tradition Connections

Associated With

The Nuremberg Trials, Landmark Cases

Command responsibility as a doctrine of individual criminal liability for a superior's failure to prevent or punish subordinates' crimes was substantially developed in the post-World War II war crimes trials, of which the Nuremberg Trials are the most prominent example in this atlas. Its more precise origin, the separate Yamashita case, is not yet a live entity here; filed as a mint candidate rather than named as the established-by case. No legal-system entity for international law exists in this atlas, so no in-legal-system edge is written for this doctrine.

Sources
1. Command Responsibility (Wikipedia)
WikipediaWikipedia, Command Responsibility article, lead section definitional sentence
Quote, Wikipedia, Command Responsibility article, lead section definitional sentence
In the practice of international law, command responsibility (also superior responsibility) is the legal doctrine of hierarchical accountability for war crimes, whereby a commanding officer (military) and a superior officer (civil) are legally responsible for the war crimes and the crimes against humanity committed by their subordinates.
View the Source
1. Command Responsibility (Wikipedia)
WikipediaWikipedia, Command Responsibility article, history sectionView the Source
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.

View At A Past Year

The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.