Charli Carpenter

As wars, geopolitical tensions and questions about international accountability challenge the global order, an important debate is emerging: Does international law still matter when powerful countries can choose to ignore it? That question was at the center of a recent episode of Doha Debates, which brought together international experts to examine the effectiveness, legitimacy and future of international law. Among the featured panelists was Charli Carpenter, Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who offered a perspective on why international law remains important, even when its rules are violated. The discussion also featured Balakrishnan Rajagopal of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Victor Gao of the Center for China and Globalization and political philosopher Curtis Yarvin. Carpenter challenged the notion that violations of international law necessarily demonstrate its failure. She pointed to the international agreements that make everyday global cooperation possible, from aviation safety to diplomacy, and argued that international legal frameworks have helped establish expectations for how countries conduct themselves. Charli Carpenter is a scholar of international relations whose research examines international law, human security, global norms and the role of advocacy networks in shaping international policy. View her profile She also emphasized that violations can sometimes strengthen international norms by prompting other countries and institutions to reaffirm their importance. "And I think it is a common myth that if an actor breaks a rule that necessarily weakens the rule. Sometimes that can be an impetus for others to defend and reaffirm the rule. And it's often the case that rule breakers don't undermine rules, they undermine themselves and their social standing in a community." The debate explored the role of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, the International Criminal Court and the challenges of holding powerful countries accountable. Carpenter also discussed research into international treaties and public attitudes toward nuclear weapons, explaining how international agreements can influence expectations and behavior even when major powers are not parties to them. As global conflicts continue to test international institutions, the discussion offers a timely examination of whether the international legal system needs reform, stronger enforcement or renewed political commitment. Watch the full Doha Debates discussion on YouTube to hear Carpenter and her fellow panelists explore the future of international law and the consequences of weakening global institutions. If you're interested in speaking with Charli Carpenter about international law, global governance, international security, human rights and the future of international institutions, simply click on her profile to arrange an interview today.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines. Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests. When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal? The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.” Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold. We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so. Compelled to disobey U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions. Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense. Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.” When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.” Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.” Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey. The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.” One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.” Soldiers, not lawyers But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance. Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law. Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S. “Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.” Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.” Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general. This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law. Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel. This finding was also borne out in our survey. When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points. Drawing the line As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes. The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders. When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order. But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%. While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable. Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one. Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city. The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.” Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same. Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly. The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders. Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line. Zahra Marashi, an undergraduate research assistant at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, contributed to the research for this article.

Charli Carpenter, professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and director of the Human Security Lab, is available to discuss a recent survey she led of U.S. military members and veterans that found a real-time drop in their trust in the president’s nuclear launch authority that occurred during the recent Iran crisis. Carpenter and colleagues Grace Bernheart, Joseph Mara and Zahra Marashi recently published an article on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explaining what their findings mean and why they are important, and Carpenter also appeared on the podcast The Fire This Time to discuss the survey. To speak with Carpenter about the survey, contact her via her ExpertFile profile here.