Command responsibility
Peace Palace in The Hague
Command responsibility,
sometimes re-
ferred to as the Yamashita standard or the
Medina standard, is the doctrine of hier-
archical accountability
in cases of war
crimes.[1][2][3]
The doctrine of “command responsibility”
was established by the Hague Conventions IV
(1907) and X (1907) and applied for the first
time by the German Supreme Court
in
Leipzig after World War I, in the trial of Emil
Muller.[4][5][6]
The "Yamashita standard" is based upon
the precedent set by the United States Su-
preme Court in the case of Japanese General
Tomoyuki Yamashita. He was prosecuted, in
a still controversial trial, for atrocities com-
mitted by troops under his command in the
Philippines. Yamashita was charged with "un-
lawfully 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." [7][8]
The "Medina standard" is based upon the
prosecution of US Army Captain Ernest Med-
ina in connection with the My Lai Massacre
during the Vietnam War.[9] It holds that a
commanding officer, being aware of a human
rights violation or a war crime, will be held
criminally liable when he does not take ac-
tion. (Medina was, however, acquitted of all
charges.)[7][10][11]
Origin of command
responsibility
Developing accountability
Hagenbach on trial, from Berner Chronik des
Diebold Schilling dem Älteren
In The Art of War, written during the 6th cen-
tury BC, Sun Tzu argued that it was a com-
mander’s duty to ensure that his subordin-
ates conducted themselves in a civilised man-
ner during an armed conflict. The trial of
Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal
of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474, was the
first “international” recognition of command-
ers’ obligations to act lawfully.[12][13] Hagen-
bach was put on trial for atrocities committed
during the occupation of Breisach, found
guilty of war crimes and beheaded.[14] Since
he was convicted for crimes "he as a knight
was deemed to have a duty to prevent"