Chain of Command Disputes

The Valorian military has experienced several disputes over the functioning of the chain of command, most notably over the role of the Commanding General of the Armed Forces, and over the legality and morality of illegal orders.

## Role of the CGAFV

The role of the Commanding General of the Armed Forces, the highest-ranking official in the Valorian military, has fluctuated throughout history. Constitutionally, its relationship with the Assembled Chiefs of Staff and Assembled Commands, as well as the secretary/minister of defense and the Commander of the Armed Forces, was ill-defined, and thus highly malleable. The different people occupying these various roles shaped the role of the CGAFV into multiple functions.

### Direct Advisor to the Commander

The modern concept of the CGAFV's role is as a direct

### Deputy to Civilian Leadership

For much of Valorian history, high-level executive offices did not have official deputies. A vast majority of important public officials, needing a deputy to assist them, thus did so through unofficial means. Although such a practice was considered risky, as it entrusted people with no official duties (and thus no official responsibilities and few methods of maintaining accountability) with vast amounts of influence and access to the inner workings of the government, many saw it as a necessary evil, and did so in order to ensure matters were not left ignored simply because there was too much for a single official to reasonably sort through.

In 1795, Minister of Defense Lincoln Mobley took advantage of the office of the CGAFV, a formal position, and used it as a deputy for his office. CGAFV Bertram Rayford, who served in the position for the entirety of Mobley's tenure, served as Mobley's "unofficial official" deputy, giving the office purpose in peacetime. PM Ken Stewart found this arrangement useful, as it allowed him to focus less personally on military affairs, which he deemed less important as the country was at peace.

### Reduced Role

Some officials throughout history viewed the office of the CGAFV as redundant and unnecessary. Although constitutionally, the office had to be filled, some prime ministers purposefully bypassed the office, instead opting to communicate directly with members of the Assembled Chiefs of Staff and Assembled Commands. PM Albert Jones was especially notorious for neglecting CGAFV Wilford Chauncey's position in the chain of command when dealing with military affairs during his tenure.

As a result of this, Jones instead controversially turned the office of the CGAFV into a reward, bestowing the office upon close friends and allies as a display of gratitude for service or help, granting them the title and prestige of having been CGAFV, without actually having the qualifications or experience necessary to effectively carry out the office's duties. His use of the office was controversial, however not frowned upon enough for significant legal action to be taken against it.

## Illegal Orders

### Background

The 1762 Constitution explicitly stated that servicemembers were to "under absolutely no conceivable circumstances" disobey their superior's orders, as such defiance would undermine the proper functioning of the military. This heavily worded message, however, arose the problem of immoral and illegal commands: what was a servicemember to do if the commands received were heavily immoral or illegal?

Some believed it was part of a servicemember's duty to disobey flagrantly immoral or illegal commands, as doing so would damage the integrity and honor of the Valorian military, and encourage commanders to abuse their power. Others argued the disobeying of commands undermined the authority supposedly entrusted in military commanders, and the possibility of defiance without repercussions would encourage servicemembers to defy orders, thus damaging the cohesion of the military and threatening national security.

### *Pickett v. McCormick*

In the late 1770s, some lawsuits were been filed by soldiers punished for disobeying orders they believed to be illegal. One such case, *Pickett v. McCormick*, in which private William Pickett refused to carry out sergeant Byron McCormick's order to murder a British civilian *hors du combat*, became famous nationwide, and rose all the way to the High Court. The High Court ruled in favor of McCormick, asserting that, although McCormick's order was illegal, as Pickett's superior, Pickett was obligated to carry out his order.

The *Pickett* decision sparked some controversy at the time, however no cases that could potentially alter the ruling made their way to the High Court until after Valoria's participation in the War of 1812. During this time, the Court confirmed the stance it held during the *Pickett* ruling, arguing in favor of maintaining army cohesion.

### Question of Legality: *Ramírez v. Wilkins*

Over time, the *Pickett* ruling's effects were largely forgotten, and could not effectively be challenged in the High Court, as Valoria did not participate in another war for decades. The question resurfaced during World War I, when some Valorian soldiers were legally compelled to comply with acts they claimed to be immoral or illegal under the *Pickett* ruling. The ruling was finally challenged by the 1921 *Ramírez v. Wilkins* case, where private Germán Ramírez was dishonorably discharged after refusing to pass on an order from captain Anthony Wilkins to his squadron under the guise of illegality.

This time, the Court amended the previous *Pickett* ruling, finding that Ramírez should have followed the order under the rules of the chain of command, however Wilkins would be held legally responsible for the assassination that would've been committed by Ramírez and his squadron.

This ruling set in place "Follow immediately, dispute after," or "FIDA" doctrine: it is not the junior officer's job or responsibility to question the legality of a superior's commands. Valorian military officials are to follow the orders of superiors, no matter the legality of said orders. After the fact, the responsibility for crimes committed can be disputed in court. If found guilty, senior officials who gave orders will be held responsible for the crimes committed by junior officials.

FIDA remains highly controversial to this day. Proponents claim the doctrine sets a standard operating procedure for difficult, spur-of-the-moment decisions, acts as a safeguard for junior officers, who will not be held responsible for crimes they committed on someone else's orders, and acts as a deterrent for senior officers, who will ultimately still be held accountable if crimes are committed. Critics call into question the efficacy of FIDA as a deterrent, and claim it to be a legal loophole that dangerously legalizes crime if committed through the military. FIDA is also denounced for being draconian and immoral, and forcing junior officers to do unconscionable acts.

### Question of Morality: *<case>*

While FIDA clarified the rules for legality, however did not confirm matters or immorality. Some soldiers continued to refuse orders under the claim of immorality, eventually culminating in the arrival of *<case>* to the High Court.

### FIDA's overturning and *<case>*

After FIDA's establishment in 1921, several organizations were quick to challenge it through the judicial system.