5cjxburmr

18.23.3 Command Responsibility. Commanders have duties to take necessary andreasonable measures to ensure that their subordinates do not commit violations of the law ofwar. 333 Failures by commanders of their duties to take necessary and reasonable measures toensure that their subordinates do not commit violations of the law of war can result in criminalresponsibility. 33418.23.3.1 Command Responsibility as a Distinct Offense. Commanders may bepunished directly for their failure to take necessary and reasonable measures to ensure that theirsubordinates do not commit violations of the law of war. For example, such failures may bepunished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as dereliction of duty or violation of ordersto take such measures. 33518.23.3.2 Command Responsibility as a Mode of Liability for an Offense. Insome cases, the failure by commanders to fulfill their duties to take necessary and reasonablemeasures to ensure that their subordinates do not commit violations of the law of war are notpunished directly as breaches of those duties, but instead by imputing responsibility for theoffense committed by the subordinates to the commander.Command responsibility as a mode of liability for an offense is reflected in U.S. statutesgoverning military commissions. 336 The statutes of international tribunals have also reflected333 Refer to § 18.4 (Commanders’ Duty to Implement and Enforce the Law of War).334 See also 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 501 (“In some cases, military commanders may be responsiblefor war crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces, or other persons subject to their control.Thus, for instance, when troops commit massacres and atrocities against the civilian population of occupied territoryor against prisoners of war, the responsibility may rest not only with the actual perpetrators but also with thecommander. Such a responsibility arises directly when the acts in question have been committed in pursuance of anorder of the commander concerned. The commander is also responsible if he has actual knowledge, or should haveknowledge, through reports received by him or through other means, that troops or other persons subject to hiscontrol are about to commit or have committed a war crime and he fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps toinsure compliance with the law of war or to punish violators thereof.”). Consider AP I art. 86(2) (“The fact that abreach of the Conventions or of this Protocol was committed by a subordinate does not absolve his superiors frompenal or disciplinary responsibility, as the case may be, if they knew, or had information which should have enabledthem to conclude in the circumstances at the time, that he was committing or was going to commit such a breach andif they did not take all feasible measures within their power to prevent or repress the breach.”).335 Refer to § 18.19.3.1 (Uniform Code of Military Justice Offenses).336 10 U.S.C. § 950q (“Any person is punishable under this chapter who— … (3) is a superior commander who, withregard to acts punishable under this chapter, knew, had reason to know, or should have known, that a subordinatewas about to commit such acts or had done so and who failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures toprevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof, is a principal.”).1123