Bill C-11 receives Royal Assent

Here is the government's statement concerning the Military Justice System Modernization Act. We'll have more on the changes in due course.

"A key reform removes Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, while retaining jurisdiction outside of Canada. This change is intended to simplify processes for victims, reduce confusion caused by overlapping systems, and provide greater independence from the chain of command in sensitive cases. It marks a deliberate step in the continued evolution of the military justice system to strengthen clarity, confidence, and trust."

Where should human rights violations be tried?

Peru is fixing to change its system to permit military courts to try such cases. There's blowback from the UN and elsewhere. Salma Ben Mariem has written this Jurist News column on the controversy. Excerpt:

If it comes into force, the bill would bar members of the armed forces or police from being tried in a civil court for the same facts if proceedings have already been opened before a military or police court. The draft law still requires a second vote in a plenary session before its promulgation by the Executive.

Peru has previously faced criticism for its handling of justice and the prosecution of human rights violations. In August 2025, UN human rights experts criticized a national law that granted amnesty to security forces accused of committing serious violations of international law during the internal armed conflict between 1980 and 2000, describing it as a violation of international law. The UN also expressed concern about the erosion of the rule of law in the country following the dismissal of a Peruvian judge from his post for comments he made regarding alleged institutional interference in the judiciary. Additionally, the UN raised concerns about the release of a former military officer who was convicted of the murder of a journalist in 1988.

More summer (and longer-term) reading

Professor Alison Duxbury of Melbourne Law School has written an important and timely article: Applying human rights law to the 'characteristics of military life': square pegs and round holes?, 15 Cambridge Int'l L.J. 5 (2026). It analyzes recent decisions -- some widely-known, some not -- from a variety of jurisdictions. "This case law is part of the increasing trend towards the civilianisation of the legal frameworks that apply to armed forces." 

Congratulations to the author on this major contribution to the literature.

The Commonwealth Military Justice Principles (2026) modify the controversial Stellenbosch draft principle (2023) on military summary proceedings

Stellenbosch Principles Workshop participants (2023) 

The 56 countries of the British Commonwealth, through the Commonwealth Secretariat, recently finalized their military justice principles and model law for smaller armed forces. The ten principles built upon an earlier draft developed in Stellenbosch, South Africa in 2023. 

Of note is Principle 10, which governs summary proceedings (military justice for minor offenses that does not involve formal court proceedings). 

Commonwealth Military Justice Principle 10 (2026) states: 

10. Summary Proceedings

a. Where summary proceedings that involve penal sanctions of consequences are heard by commanders against military personnel, ensure that sufficient protections exist, including the right to elect trial in a military court which provides access to the internationally recognised rights set out in Principle 7 above, or an unfettered appellate procedure to such a court. 

b. Ensure that summary proceedings are only used to adjudicate less serious cases and to impose sanctions which are proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, and which do not involve sentences of imprisonment or any other deprivation of liberty for a significant period of time, violation of human rights, or dismissal from service.

Stellenbosch Principle 10 (2023) stated: 

10. Summary Proceedings 

a. Where summary proceedings are initiated by commanders against military personnel, ensure that sufficient protections exist, including the right to elect trial in a military court which provides access to the internationally recognised rights set out in Principle 7 above, or an unfettered appellate procedure to such a court. 

b. Ensure that summary proceedings are only used to adjudicate minor offences and to impose minor sanctions which are proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, and which do not involve sentences of imprisonment or any other significant deprivation of liberty, violation of human rights, or dismissal from service. 

Stellenbosch Principle 10(a) was controversial for mandating an accused's choice to "turn down" disciplinary proceedings and elect a military trial without limitation. Commonwealth Principle 10 limits the turn-down right to only when the summary proceedings include penal sanctions. 

Military disciplinary proceedings and constitutional law

Giovanni Matos writes here in Diario Libre:

The recent jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic on the disciplinary regime of lawyers has reopened one of the most important debates for contemporary Dominican constitutionalism: the limits of the regulatory power of the Executive Branch when fundamental rights are at stake .

This is no small matter. In a constitutional democracy , the state 's power to impose sanctions cannot be exercised outside the principles of legality and statutory reservation. Precisely for this reason, the recent decisions of the Constitutional Court regarding the disciplinary regime of the Dominican Republic Bar Association have prompted reflection that transcends the professional sphere of law and extends to other state institutions subject to special disciplinary regimes, particularly the Armed Forces .

The question is as simple as it is momentous: can a presidential decree create disciplinary sanctions that involve arrest or confinement, or do such measures necessarily require a formal law approved by the National Congress?

So the question seems to be whether military justice must be regulated by legislation or executive branch decree.