Moral monsters or ordinary men who do monstrous things? Psychological dimensions of the military and their implications for war crimes tribunal defenses

Most recently, the war in Iraq and the issues surrounding it have focused the world's attention on war and its aftermath. The debate regarding personal responsibility for war crimes and atrocities continues to rage and many issues remain largely unresolved. There has been very little attention to the interests of defendants. The two most common substantive defenses argued by defendants are superior orders and duress. This dissertation specifically argues that these defenses, as currently formulated, are inadequate to address the needs of war crimes tribunals. The exceptional circumstance of war and the overarching context of the military have potentially profound effects on the psychological functioning and decision-making of soldiers. This dissertation reviews the aspects of law and psychology implicated in war crimes defense. It specifically examines the potential of reforming the currently enumerated defenses, as well as suggests methods for integrating psychological evidence into available defense strategies. The context of the military provides a background against which the conduct of soldiers accused of war crimes can be judged. The cumulative impact of military culture, training and combat suggests a level of duress and better understanding of compliance with orders. Therefore, this dissertation advocates that the punishment of war crimes must fit not only the crime and criminal, but the context as well.