Polish and U.S. military law

Szymon Kulmaszewskit, A Comparative Analysis of the Military Justice Systems of Poland and the United States v. America.

Most authors agree that “military justice” does not have a clearly defined normative definition. Nevertheless, the term is anchored in the area of institutionalized activities of a military organization (armed forces) and for this reason it functions in the language of both legal science and military science. The text presents a synthetic outline of the history of military justice in Poland and in the U.S. Underlying the assumptions of the military justice system, such as the need to exercise jurisdiction over military persons, and the need to handle military cases within the framework of separated, common features can be discerned. Due to the fact that problems of the creation and application of military law broadens the scope of normative terminology to include the concept of military justice system, and with it the concept of a military case, this study engages in a broad interpretation of those concepts, and the result yields some surprises. For one, the enforcement of military law runs in a manner separated from the general order in many legal systems. There is no single international standard for military justice: it heavily reflects domestic attitudes about the role of armed forces in society. Even for areas of seeming commonality such as the influence of international human rights law, nations differ in how they apply international standards to the military. Thus, conventional wisdom would hold that military justice systems will vary greatly by country as matters of national prerogative. And yet the common organic features of the military justice system of Poland and the U.S. bear stunning similarities. This, we argue, reveals a common law for military justice, and lays the groundwork for further comparative law studies with a focus on military justice.

Promotion case heard by Trinidad & Tobago Court of Appeal

Trinidad & Tobago Newsday has this informative report on a case that was heard yesterday in the Court of Appeal, concerning the denied promotion of a member of the Defence Force to warrant officer rank. The court has ordered supplemental briefing on one issue. We'll keep an eye out for the decision.

High Court upholds war injury pension benefits to injured soldier who fell in a rivulet during an anti-terrorist operation

The Punjab & Haryana High Court (India) has upheld the grant of “War Injury Pension” by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to a soldier who was injured due to a fall in a rivulet during an anti-terror operation. The soldier was released “Disability Pension” by the Government but refused “War Injury Pension”, a higher form of disability pension, on the pretext that such an injury could not be treated as a disability while in action, and that only injuries sustained in active operations due to bullets, blasts, mine-blasts etc would qualify for War Injury Pension.

On a petition filed by the soldier in the AFT, the said tribunal granted him relief holding that all injuries that were attributable to military service in operational areas were to be treated as qualifying for War Injury Pension, and that the same was also provided in the instructions issued by the Government of India.

The judgment of the AFT was however challenged by the Government in the High Court. The High Court, upholding the judgment of the AFT, has held that all such accidental injuries in operational areas were covered for grant of War Injury Pension, and that the same had also been held by the Supreme Court of India. The High Court has observed that even disabilities due to natural illnesses in such areas were covered for war injury benefits.

A news-report on the judgment in The Times of India can be accessed here.

Orders to execute

"Whom Will Our Military Be Ordered to Execute Next?" former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall asks here in The New York Times. Excerpt:

Our military leaders are trained to evaluate the legality of orders they are given. As part of their professional education, the American values of respect for and compliance with the law are reinforced throughout military officers’ careers. They all understand that they have a duty to challenge any order they believe may be illegal — and disobey any order they know to be illegal.

The order to preemptively execute alleged drug traffickers at sea has never been considered a legal act before. . . .

Ex-MAG arrested

So says this BBC report. "The former top lawyer in the Israeli military has been arrested, as a political showdown deepens over the leaking of a video that allegedly shows severe abuse of a Palestinian detainee by Israeli soldiers."