Talk:Superior Orders
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been assessed as mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Under Construction!
This article is still being written. Please excuse the abrupt death.--Carboxy's moron (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Can someone end the thought on the last sentence? I don't know what the author intended and don't wish to "Guess a completion". Xphill64x (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Respondeat Superior
The current phrase from the article is "It is seen to be the complement to the doctrine of respondeat superior, or Command responsibility." The citation is 17 Harv. L. Rev. 52-53 (1903-4). The author of the text is "The Harvard Law Editorial Board", the citation is to an editorial note on the then recent case Decker v. Erie R. R. Co. 85 N.Y. App. Div. 13 (no year citation). The article does not appear in the table of contents of the issue and is not searchable as an article name in law review search engines. The editorial note describes a new interpretation of the respondeat superior doctrine for assigning liability to a company with legal control over subordinate companies. In this case, Erie assumes responsibility over Lehigh rail, even when Erie performs no actual control over Lehigh, but has the contractual right to do so. The quote above is correct; however, the law review article supports a more general statement of respondeat superior. I have cited an American Law Review article Defense of Superior Orders Before Military Commissions, Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 13 DUKEJCIL 389 (2003) (that indirectly supports the existing statement). The article makes an argument of how tribunals should handle the superior orders plea, but also cites various tribunals that have treated the plea differently. The view in some tribunals is that superior orders is a mitigating factor for alleged war crimes but is no defense, in others it has been a complete defense similar to respondeat superior, which the author criticizes. Legis Nuntius (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assessment
I have initially assessed this article to be a start class and of mid-importance within the scope of wikiproject law. Assessment ratings are developed by consensus on article talk pages, and so the assessment of others is encouraged and appreciated. Legis Nuntius (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Confused
Did the Nurenburg Trials not abolish this defence, i.e. befehl ist befehl is no longer a valid excuse? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not really, it didn't. The defence was limited, which is not the same as it being abolished - it can no longer be used to escape liability, but it is a mitigating factor in the determination of sentence, and is valid in some domestic jurisdictions.Carboxy's moron (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal
Superior Orders and Nuremberg Defense cover pretty much the same topic. Although Nuremberg Defense focusses more strongly on the Nuremberg trials, both articles discuss both Nuremberg and non-Nuremberg trials.
