Legal Definitions - good-soldier defense

The term good-soldier defense refers to an argument made by a defendant who claims they should not be held responsible for their actions because they were simply obeying orders from a superior, particularly in military or corporate settings.

It is important to understand that the "good-soldier defense" is generally not a valid legal defense. Legal systems typically hold individuals accountable for their own wrongful acts, even if those acts were committed under instruction. The principle is that a person has a duty to refuse an unlawful order, unless they were under extreme duress or coercion that genuinely removed their ability to choose otherwise.

Here are some examples illustrating how this term might be used, even though it rarely succeeds as a legal defense:

• Example 1 (Military Context): During a conflict, a junior officer is ordered by a commanding officer to target and destroy a clearly marked cultural heritage site, an act prohibited by international law. The junior officer carries out the order. If later charged with war crimes, they might attempt to use a "good-soldier defense," arguing they were merely following their superior's command. However, this defense would likely fail because the order was manifestly unlawful, and the officer had a duty to disobey it.

• Example 2 (Corporate Context): A mid-level manager at a pharmaceutical company is instructed by a senior executive to withhold critical safety data about a new drug from regulatory bodies. Fearing job loss, the manager complies. When the drug causes harm and an investigation ensues, the manager might try to invoke a "good-soldier defense," claiming they were just following the executive's directive. This argument would typically not absolve them of responsibility for their role in the deception, as they participated in an illegal act.

• Example 3 (Public Sector Context): An administrative assistant in a government agency is told by their department head to delete emails and digital files related to a controversial contract before an internal audit. The assistant, wanting to keep their job, complies. If the deletion is discovered and leads to charges of obstruction, the assistant might argue they were simply following orders. This "good-soldier defense" would likely be unsuccessful, as deleting official records to impede an audit is an unlawful act, and the assistant would be expected to refuse such an order.