Command responsibility

Command responsibility, sometimes referred to as the Yamashita standard or the Medina standard, and also known as superior responsibility, is the legal doctrine of hierarchical accountability for war crimes.Whoever intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy already wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy, or who orders or encourages soldiers to do so, shall suffer death, if duly convicted, whether he belongs to the Army of the United States, or is an enemy captured after having committed his misdeed.The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.The commanders in chief of the belligerent fleets must arrange for the details of carrying out the preceding articles, as well as for cases not covered thereby, in accordance with the instructions of their respective Governments and in conformity with the general principles of the present Convention.the fact that a breach of the Conventions or of this Protocol was committed by a subordinate does not absolve his superiors from ... responsibility ... if they knew, or had information which should have enabled them to conclude in the circumstances at the time, that he was committing or about to commit such a breach and if they did not take all feasible measures within their power to prevent or repress the breach.either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes.... individual commanders and civilian officials could be liable for failing to take any action to end abuses by their troops or staff ... The principle of command responsibility is applicable in internal armed conflicts as well as international armed conflicts.had 'command responsibility' for the atrocities committed by the multiple Sudanese security services. Command responsibility, sometimes referred to as the Yamashita standard or the Medina standard, and also known as superior responsibility, is the legal doctrine of hierarchical accountability for war crimes. The term may also be used more broadly to refer to the duty to supervise subordinates, and liability for the failure to do so, both in government, military law, and with regard to corporations and trusts. The doctrine of 'command responsibility' was established by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, partly based on the American Lieber code, a war manual for the Union forces signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, and was applied for the first time by the German Supreme Court at the Leipzig War Crimes Trials after World War I, in the 1921 trial of Emil Müller. The United States of America confirmed and incorporated the mentioned 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions on 'command responsibility' into United States federal law through the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court (called the 'Yamashita standard') in the case of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita. He was prosecuted in 1945 for atrocities committed by troops under his command in the Philippines, in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Yamashita was charged with 'unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes.' Furthermore, the so-called 'Medina standard' clarified the U.S. law to clearly also encompass U.S. officers, so that those as well as foreign officers such as General Yamashita can be prosecuted in the United States. The 'Medina standard' is based upon the 1971 prosecution of U.S. Army Captain Ernest Medina in connection with the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. It holds that a U.S. commanding officer, being aware of a human rights violation or a war crime, will be held criminally liable if he does not take action. However, Medina was acquitted of all charges. In The Art of War, written during the 6th century BC, Sun Tzu argued that it was a commander's duty to ensure that his subordinates conducted themselves in a civilised manner during an armed conflict. Similarly, in the Bible (Kings 1: Chapter 21), within the story of Ahab and the killing of Naboth, King Ahab was blamed for the killing of Naboth on orders from Queen Jezebel, because Ahab (as king) was responsible for everyone in his kingdom. The trial of Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474, was the first 'international' recognition of commanders' obligations to act lawfully. Hagenbach was put on trial for atrocities committed during the occupation of Breisach, found guilty of war crimes and beheaded. Since he was convicted for crimes 'he as a knight was deemed to have a duty to prevent', Hagenbach defended himself by arguing that he was only following orders from the Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, to whom the Holy Roman Empire had given Breisach. Despite the fact there was no explicit use of a doctrine of 'command responsibility', it is seen as the first trial based on this principle. During the American Civil War, the concept developed further, as can be seen in the 'Lieber Code'. This regulated accountability by imposing criminal responsibility on commanders for ordering or encouraging soldiers to wound or kill already disabled enemies. Article 71 of the Lieber Code provided that: The Hague Convention of 1899 was the first attempt at codifying the principle of command responsibility on a multinational level and was reaffirmed and updated entirely by the Hague Convention of 1907. The doctrine was specifically found within 'Laws and Customs of War on Land' (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: 'Section I on Belligerents: Chapter I The Qualifications of Belligerents', 'Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State', and 'Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention' (Hague X); October 18, 1907. Article 1 of Section I of the 1907 Hague IV stated that: