U.S. forces conduct air defense operations in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility during Operation Epic Fury, April 2, 2026. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Army)
Military Law Expert on Unlawful Orders and the Iran Ceasefire
As the U.S., Israel and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire, questions remain about the legal and ethical boundaries of the rhetoric that defined the conflict. Judge , director of the Institute for Security Policy and Law and a professor in both the and the at Syracuse University, addresses those questions directly in our latest Q&A.
Baker also serves as a judge on the Data Protection Review Court, bringing a rare combination of academic expertise and active judicial experience to issues at the intersection of national security, military law and international legal norms.
To schedule an interview, please reach out to Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.
As George Washington stated in 1776, 鈥渁n Army without Order, Regularity and Discipline, is no better than a Commission鈥檇 Mob.鈥 Professional militaries follow the law and win wars. Armed mobs in uniform commit war crimes.
Whether intended as threats, hyperbole or directives that might find their way into orders, statements from the commander in chief to cause 鈥渁 whole civilization to die,鈥 a call to genocide, 鈥渂omb Iran back to the stone age,鈥 or 鈥渙bliterate all of a nation鈥檚 power plants鈥 without distinction as to which serve a military purpose are unprecedented and harmful to the United States military and to U.S. national security. Targets require individual assessment as to necessity, distinction, proportionality and military objective.
Adherence to the law of armed conflict (LOAC), much of which is U.S. criminal law as well as international law, is essential to building and maintaining public support for U.S. military operations, as demonstrated by the impact on public support following My Lai and Abu Ghraib. Adherence to law is also essential to receiving alliance support, including in opening the Strait of Hormuz.
Adherence to the LOAC distinguishes the United States from our opponents. What we should be talking about is Iran鈥檚 indiscriminate firing of missiles and drones into civilian buildings in Israel and the Gulf. Instead we are talking about whether the U.S. is or will be committing war crimes. This undermines the military mission and the reputation of the United States and U.S. military.
When the commander in chief uses such language, it is harder for the U.S. military to articulate what it is doing (and not doing) and why and to be believed when it states the military purpose for striking a target.
Under U.S. law, an order is presumed lawful; however, members of the armed forces 鈥渕ust refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations,鈥 or orders that a member knows are, in fact, unlawful. In addition, as also stated in the Department of Defense (DOD)/Department of War (DOW) Law of War Manual, 鈥渙rders should not be construed to authorize implicitly violations of the law of war.鈥
A member of the armed forces would know that an order to target a civilian facility that is not serving a direct military purpose, or for the purpose of punishing a population, or to 鈥渄estroy a civilization鈥 is clearly unlawful. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, senior commanders could be accountable for the actions of their subordinates that violate the LOAC.
It can be hard to say no to a commander, including the commander-in-chief, and then guide that commander back to lawful options. Having the moral courage to do the right thing in the hardest times is called character. Character defines who we are and how we will be remembered.
