Honest Errors? Combat Decision-Making 75 Years After the Hostage Case

More about the book

This volume commemorates the 75th anniversary of the 1948 Hostage Case, where a US military tribunal acquitted General Lothar Rendulic for the devastation of Northern Norway due to an honest factual error. It critically reassesses the legal and factual foundations of his trial, including the no second-guessing rule in international humanitarian law (IHL) named after him, and evaluates modern battlefield decision-making. Utilizing newly uncovered documents, the book challenges Rendulic’s assertion that the region's total destruction and the forced evacuation of its inhabitants were necessary for military reasons. Analysis of court records reveals the tribunal's failure to consider pertinent facts or clarify the legal origins of the Rendulic Rule. The anthology argues that, despite the Hostage Case's ambiguities, objective reasonableness is integral to the reasonable commander test in IHL and the mistake of fact defense in international criminal law (ICL). It also explores the complexities of modern warfare—such as human judgment and institutional bias—that complicate the classification of errors as honest and reasonable. While the Rendulic Rule warns against hindsight judgments of battlefield decisions, it emerged from a case that raises ongoing legal and ethical dilemmas. This comprehensive study, appealing to IHL and ICL scholars, military historians, and ethicists, presents groundbreaking research.