Does what happens in the barracks stay there? (A note from Switzerland)

The Tribune de Genève has the story here -- with a good summary of Swiss military justice to boot. (Google Translate does a good job withv this.) Excerpt:

If the conviction that concerns you appears on your son's criminal record, he will need to be aware of it in certain situations in his daily life. A prospective employer may request a criminal record extract, particularly for sensitive positions. However, the criminal record extract available to individuals is more limited than the one accessible to authorities. Furthermore, entries are not permanent: they are automatically removed after a certain period, which depends on the seriousness of the offense.

Your son can request his own criminal record extract to know exactly what is included. This will allow him to better anticipate situations where his past might be examined and to prepare contextualized explanations if necessary.

Ultimately, a military conviction is not necessarily a dead end for civilian life. It all depends on its nature and severity. In many cases, the impact remains limited, especially if your son now demonstrates exemplary behavior.

Is Pakistan's 27th Amendment to the Constitution constitutional?

The Lahore High Court Bar Association thinks not, and that as a result, the intra-court appeals concerning the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over civilians must be returned from the new Federal Constitutional Court to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Details from the bar's submission can be found here. Excerpt from Dawn's report:

The application contended that the 27th Ame­ndment was in violation of the salient and essential features of the Constitution, stating that the 1973 Constitution defined the powers of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.

“While parliament possesses the power to amend the Constitution, it does not function as a constituent assembly and is subject to both express and implied limitations,” it added.

The application pointed out that the jurisprudence of the SC — most recently the authoritative 17-member judgement in the Rawalpindi District Bar Association case — had affirmed that parliament could not, through any amendment, alter or abrogate the salient or essential features of the Constitution, including the independence of the judiciary.

The application pleaded that both the 26th and 27th amendments impermissibly encroached upon judicial independence and restructured the constitutional architecture in a manner inconsistent with these unamendable features. Therefore, they constituted an invalid exercise of amendatory power.

It argued that a constitutional amendment, which undermined judicial independence while simultaneously divesting pre-existing constitutional courts of jurisdiction to examine its validity, violated fundamental constitutional principles.

“If permitted, parliament can abolish or replace the forum for constitutional adjudication at will, thereby insulating unconstitutional amendments from judicial scrutiny,” the plea feared.

The application further noted that the SC had consistently distinguished betw­een “jurisdiction” and “judicial power”.

“Even where parliament modifies jurisdiction, judicial power — i.e. the authority to determine whether jurisdiction exists — remains inherent in the superior judiciary,” it read.

“Accordingly, notwithstanding the 27th Amendment, it lies within the judicial power of the SC to determine whether it has been validly divested of jurisdiction. The subject appeal must therefore be restored to the SC for that purpose.”

Reform proposed for Nigerian military justice

A bill to reform Nigerian military justice has passed its second reading in the Senate, according to this report. Excerpt:

Under the bill, such reports will now be submitted to a court of law for review before any conviction can be upheld.

The proposed legislation also prohibits undue command interference in courts-martial, guarantees due process, and strengthens independence and fairness within the military justice system.

The Armed Forces (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bill, 2025, sponsored by Senator Abdulaziz Yar’Adua, aims to modernise military law, uphold the supremacy of the Constitution, and align Nigeria’s Armed Forces with global standards of accountability, discipline, and professionalism.

The Sde Teiman Case (another in the series)

Noam Kozlov has written this post for Just Security on Persecuting the Prosecutors: Israel’s Military Lawyers Under Pressure. Excerpt:

At this point, it is crucial to highlight that safeguarding the Israeli MAG [Military Advocate General] is in the best interest of everyone who values the rule of law, regardless of their broader views on the conflict. Even for those who believe Israel is unwilling or unable to investigate itself, especially with respect to high-ranking officials, the capacity of international tribunals to effectively and timely investigate and prevent violations is, at best, limited. The authority of the MAG within the IDF enables it to influence policy in real-time, not only enforcing but also preventing violations of international law. In this regard, a functioning internal review mechanism cannot be fully replaced by an international body, which has inherently limited resources and access to enforce compliance in real-time. Even when it comes to holding violators accountable, international institutions naturally face limitations in access to information and evidence, and cannot meaningfully replace an effective internal investigative system.

That said, the Israeli MAG seems to be increasingly unable to fulfill its duties in holding violators accountable, partly due to political pressures, including from certain government officials. Therefore, it is essential for Israeli leaders, both in the military and civilian sectors, to safeguard the legitimacy and independence of the MAG; Israel’s allies should also emphasize the critical role the MAG plays in their ongoing cooperation with Israel. Additionally, members of the international law community must voice their support for a robust and independent MAG. As noted above, dismissing the role of the Israeli MAG would be counterproductive; while the MAG faces significant and growing challenges to performing its duties independently and effectively, there is no fully adequate alternative to an internal compliance institution.

Finally, the Sde Teiman case demonstrates that many in the MAG still value the rule of law and the enforcement of international norms, including the officers involved in the investigation and the higher chain of command that authorized and supported them. This is said regardless of whether Yerushalmi should have acted differently with respect to the leak and cover-up. Ultimately, the Sde Teiman soldiers accused of abusing prisoners were indicted with charges of aggravated battery and abuse, and their trial is still ongoing. Therefore, while many changes are needed in the MAG, there is hope, and an urgent need, that the MAG will once again uphold the rule of law and enforce humanitarian duties during war.

Mr. Kozlov concludes: "These dynamics demonstrate the role of the MAG in upholding the rule of law in Israel as part of the broader judicial apparatus. The weakening of the MAG affects not only the IDF’s ability to carry out its missions lawfully, but also the broader protection of the rule of law in Israel." American readers may see some resonance with the current administration's stance with respect to the Judge Advocates General and their responsibilities.

Reforming India's grievance redress system

In India, the fundamental rights of the members of the Forces (Armed Forces and the Central Paramilitary/Armed Police Forces) are restricted by Article 33 of the Constitution to ensure the proper discharge of duties and maintenance of discipline among them. They are denied the right to be members of trade unions or associations, to attend political meetings and to communicate with the press. The State has, however, bestowed on them the right to make complaints seeking the redress of their grievances. The provision for the redress of grievances is contained in the Army Act, 1950 and is similar in the other two services. The Regulations of the three services, however, provide different procedures for the processing of grievance petitions; thus, damaging the effectiveness of a statutory right.

Shortcomings in the grievance redress system are as follows:

Inordinate Delays: The time-frame for processing of a grievance petition is too long, and is different in the case of each service. For instance, in the case of the Army, when the complaint does not contain any accusation requiring investigation, it is required to reach the Army headquarters within 135 days. If the complainant has made an accusation requiring investigation, the complaint should reach the headquarters within 180 to 195 days. Moreover, the Regulations do not provide any time-frame for the Army Headquarters or the Central Government to give its final decision in the matter. The length of time taken in giving a decision also causes significant distraction to the affected persons and their peers. When it takes a long-time to resolve a grievance petition, members may also feel that the complaint is not being taken seriously. This can cause discontent at unit level and the delay in the finalization of a complaint frustrates the very purpose of the system.

Faulty Processing: During the processing of a complaint, the complainant is not informed about the comments of the section commander and intermediate authorities on his grievance application. In the case of Union of India v. Maj Gen Arun Roye (2008), the Calcutta High Court opined: “…non-furnishing of comments of the intermediate authorities to the complainant who lodged the statutory complaint is tantamount to violation of the principles of natural justice. This is because the comments that are furnished by the intermediate authorities to the Central Government are essential to the complainant, so as to enable that person to know what has been commented against him/her by the said military authority while forwarding the complaint to the Government.” 

Decision is not ‘reasoned’: The decision on an application is not required to be a “reasoned” order and it could be conveyed in a brief sentence, such as: “Your application has been rejected by the competent authority as being devoid of merit.” Stereotype rejection orders reinforce the doubt that complaints are treated arbitrarily and against the principles of natural justice. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court has held that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The rejection of a grievance, in the absence of any reasoning, indicates either that the authority did not listen or that it took an arbitrary decision. For reasons of transparency, a judgement must assure that appropriate care has been given while taking the decision, and that outcome is not the result of improper motives. The reason given for a judgement plays a significant role in demonstrating that the person concerned has actually been heard.       

Coercive Provisions: In the Army, if a complainant has made an accusation in the grievance petition, he/she is required to render a certificate, “I undertake that any false statement or false accusation made by me in this complaint will render me liable for disciplinary action.” In cases of the use of abusive language, misbehaviour and sexual harassment, which may take place in private, it may not be possible for a victim to support his/her accusation with any documentary proof or witness. Then the victim would be liable to disciplinary action under section 56(b) of the Army Act, based on the certificate rendered with his/her petition, where maximum punishment could be up to 5 years of imprisonment. This often deters the victim from seeking redress and makes the statutory right meaningless. Similar provisions do not exist in the regulations of the Navy or the Air Force.

Legal Help and Harassment: All levels of the military hierarchy are entitled to seek legal advice on a complaint. However, the aggrieved person is not provided any legal help for preferring his complaint. The persons objected to may participate in disposing of the objection. If the grievance is against the higher authorities, the affected individual or his family may also face social seclusion and harassment. There have been allegations that those lodging complaints against their superiors have been transferred to far-flung places, causing harassment to them and their family members.

Increasing number of court cases: There has been an unusual increase in the filing of writ petitions and civil suits by the men in uniform, which demonstrates a gradual erosion of faith in the grievance redressal system in the Forces. The large number of cases that have come up before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the superior civil courts in recent years show that the grievance redress system of the defence forces has not only been moving at a very slow pace, but has also not been able to satisfy the aspirations of men in uniform.

For your bookshelf (and holiday gift-giving)

Military Justice in Modern History: The Adjudication of War and Violence in a Globalising World, edited by Kelly Maddox, Tino Schölz and Urs Matthias Zachmann and funded by the Freie Universität Berlin. This book will be available starting Dec. 29, 2025.

Coast Guard in the Crossfire: From Nazi Swastikas to Caribbean Attacks

Rear Admiral (ret) William D. Baumgartner, former Judge Advocate General and Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard, insightfully reviews several pressing current issues -- Nazi symbols, drug interdiction, boat strikes, orders -- on Joel Rubin's Making Sense of the World podcast. You can find the interview here.

Orders, lawful and unlawful

The country is engaged in a national conversation right now about obedience to orders, which ones are lawful, which are not, and what to do if in doubt. Here is a Just Security post the editor wrote five years ago that may be worth dusting off and here is a link to The Orders Project's website.

That case from Trinidad & Tobago

Remember this case? The High Court has ruled for the plaintiff, including an award of damages. Details here. Excerpt from Newsday's account:

Pierre, who has served 29 years in the Regiment and has held the rank of Warrant Officer Class II since July 2019, argued that commanders used performance appraisals not recognised in the Regiment’s Standing Orders and failed to substantiate negative claims about his “mannerisms” and “tone.” He said those allegations, made by a junior officer, were never investigated or supported with evidence and resulted in lower annual ratings that disqualified him under the disputed system.

The court agreed, ruling that the Chief of Defence Staff and the Commanding Officer of the TT Regiment failed to annually appraise Pierre, verify complaints against him, or provide performance feedback before drafting his confidential reports. The judge declared that promoting junior officers ahead of Pierre was unlawful and that he had a legitimate expectation of being promoted as of February 5, 2024.

James ordered the defendants to pay $50,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in vindicatory damages and directed that legal costs be assessed if not agreed. The court also found that the Regiment’s alleged “mathematical equation” system, under which mixed biannual ratings were combined to produce a lower annual score, had no basis in standing orders or approval from the Defence Council.

Should generals be assigned to civilian posts?

Five general officers in Malawi think not, and have gone to court to press the point. Details here. Excerpt:

Inside MDF sources paint an even darker picture. Four of the senior officers--[Major Generals] Soko, Kalisha, Banda and Dzoole--have been posted as Directors of Security at ADMARC, NOCMA, Water Board, and EGENCO, while Brigadier General Mchungula has been dispatched to ESCOM in the same capacity.

To many observers, the redeployments bear the markings of political interference, stripping the military of its independence and scattering its top brass into parastatals at a time when stability, discipline and strategic leadership are most needed.

With the matter now before the High Court, pressure is intensifying on the Mutharika administration to explain why decorated military leaders are being moved like political pawns--and whether the rule of law still governs decisions at the highest levels of government.

On unlawful orders

Six federal legislators, Democrats all, have issued a video concerning obedience to unlawful orders. The New York Times has the story here.

Narcotrafficking strikes -- a hypothetical legal review (in the absence of the real one)

Read Dan Maurer's review here on Just Security. From the JS post:

This “operational legal review” is first in a series of essays examining the legal basis for current or potential U.S. military operations. This is not an official legal review; however, the format and analysis are representative of the legal advice that judge advocates (uniformed lawyers) provide military commanders when advising on the legality of specific uses of military forces. The content of this review is not based on any actual legal review or on any classified information; all facts are drawn from publicly available sources or are (stated) assumptions of the author. The law applied to those examined facts is real. As former judge advocates, the authors will draft these documents to illustrate the kind of advice they would have given their commanders in each situation. The Former JAG Working Group  offers it in the hope that everyone who reads it will ask whether current or future uses of the United States military are supported by comparable legal analyses and, if not, why not.

This “operational legal review” depicts what a staff judge advocate’s advice would and should have been prior to the first reported strike on an alleged narcotrafficker “go-fast” vessel on September 2, 2025, killing eleven purported members of Tren de Aragua. In the subsequent two months, similar drone-executed air strikes were repeated at least twenty-one times, killing at least 83, in both the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean. Other than imagining that these strikes lay in the future, all other background facts on which the review relies are true. We are aware that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has reportedly issued a lengthy opinion contending that the campaign we are calling “OPERATION RECIPROCITY,” including the sinking of alleged drug boats and killing of persons on those boats, is legal.  That OLC opinion has not been made public.

Fun facts or not

You may be familiar with the execution of Admiral Byng after his court-martial--a case surrounded by controversy. Traditionally, officers were executed by firing squad, while enlisted men (apparently including midshipmen[1]) were hanged. For example, some of the Spithead and Nore mutineers. 

A recent article in the The Indian Express reminds us of some other naval traditions. For example, the firing of a single gun indicates that a court-martial is to begin. In Royal Navy parlance, this signal was known as the “rogue’s salute” (or sometimes “one-gun salute”). The Express article suggests that:

• The practice is not well attested in modern times: one article notes, “It is not known whether this practice of firing a gun on the days a court martial is conducted is still in effect.”

• Some navies (for example the Royal New Zealand Navy) claim to continue a nearly-identical tradition: at Devonport Naval Base (NZ) a shore-based saluting cannon fires a single shot at 0800 on each day a court-martial sits, and the national flag is hoisted/lowered accordingly.

• On the Royal Navy side, websites of historical naval tradition still record the “one-gun congress” at court-martial day: “A special gun salute, the firing of a single gun known as the ‘rogue’s salute’, is fired at colours on the day a court-martial convenes at sea or on land.”

(Superficial reading suggests) The “court-martial gun” / “rogue’s salute” is still prescribed in the current Queen’s Regulations for the Royal Navy, but in practice is often omitted because modern courts-martial sit ashore in built-up areas.

[1] Note reference to a certain king who granted clemency to the midshipman in the Sandwich case.

Not military justice, but . . .

Count Every Hero has just published The Perils of Politicizing the Military.The authors of the white paper are Admiral Steve Abbot, USN (ret.), Admiral Thad Allen, USCG (ret.), former Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, General George Casey, USA (ret.), former Secretary of the Air Force Debbie Lee James. and former Secretary of the Navy Sean O’Keefe. Excerpt:

We write as former secretaries of the U.S. Armed Forces and retired four-star admirals and generals who have served under administrations of both parties. This paper examines the impact of the growing perception and reality of politicization within the U.S. Armed Forces—a trend that risks weakening national security decision-making, eroding civil–military trust, and undermining democratic norms. This is not a partisan issue but a constitutional and institutional one. 

In the pages that follow, we define “politicization” of the military, examine the legal and normative guardrails designed to prevent it, draw lessons from history, review recent trends of politicization, and offer concrete steps to keep the force politically neutral, professional, and trusted. Our purpose is to reaffirm first principles: an apolitical military is a cornerstone of the Republic, essential to the effectiveness and legitimacy of the armed services and to the health of American democracy itself. [Footnote omitted.]

OLC opinion on detailing attorneys to DOJ to serve as immigration judges and SAUSAs

The October 23, 2025 opinion of Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser,  Office of Legal Counsel, Departrment of Justice, concerning the detailing of attorneys (including judge advocates) to DOJ to serve as immigration judges and Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys can be found here.

Canada's flawed military justice system

On 26 September 2025, Minister of National Defence, the Hon. David McGuinty, introduced An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts (aka: Military Justice System Modernization Act). The legislation was originally proposed as Bill C-66 but it died with the prorogation of Parliament in January 2025.

We are told that the measures are designed to modernize and enhance the military justice system to respond to key recommendations made in independent and external reviews conducted by former Supreme Court Justices Louise Arbour and Morris J. Fish.

The legislation is intended to reinforce “the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) continued commitment of a fair, transparent and trusted system of military justice.”

To be frank, fairness, transparency and trust have been absent from the military justice system for at least 40 years, and perhaps much longer.

In response to the Honourable Louise Arbour’s Independent External Comprehensive Review, the legislation “will remove the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada” and provide exclusive jurisdiction to civilian authorities to investigate and prosecute such offences committed in Canada.”

Recommendations of the Third Independent Review of the Military Justice System, led by the Honourable Morris J. Fish, will have the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Director of Military Prosecutions, and the Director of Defence Counsel Services, appointed by the Governor-in-Council. This will, we are told, insulate these offices “from real or perceived influence from the chain of command.”

While the Defence Counsel Services may benefit from this initiative, the Provost Marshal and the Military Prosecutions branches will doubtlessly need more leadership and ethical guidance to align them with contemporary Canadian values of “best police practices,” justice, jurisprudence and professional ethics.

The Defence department’s news release notes that “As the military justice system continues to serve the CAF [Canadian Armed Forces], efforts to enhance and modernize it are key to advancing meaningful and lasting institutional reform."

But if the past half century is any indication, these words may be as empty as the many promises of new equipment, vehicles and weapon systems that our military personnel have so often been promised.

The role of military justice should be both a disciplinary system and a source of legitimacy for the armed forces. While military justice ensures order and operational effectiveness, its ultimate strength lies in its credibility as a fair and lawful institution, a precondition for which the Canadian Armed Forces receives a failing grade.

Canadian military justice must, first, recognize the primacy of Canadian rights and freedoms. It must reflect the traditions and conventions of Canadian justice, and it must respond to all offences with equal effort and not simply cherry pick the matters which come into its purview. Its “centre of gravity” mandates that rigourous and uncompromising attention to fairness and equal treatment for all who are suspected of wrongdoing, and immediate rectification when military justice officials have erred.

Second, the system must constantly balance discipline with due process, reflecting both operational necessity and respect for rights, including the right to the presumption of innocence.

In the 16 September 2024 issue of Ottawa Life magazine, retired Colonel Brett Boudreau enumerated the charges and tribunals of ten general and flag officers – “one admiral, a just-retired general, six lieutenant-generals/vice-admirals, and two major generals” – investigated by the Military Police and acquitted. Their circumstances forced nearly all to ignominiously leave the military under a cloud of criminal suspicion.

What was the cost to their careers, their families and their mental health?

And military lawyers are no less blameworthy. The 20 May 2022 issue of the Halifax Chronicle Herald published the fifth of a series of six articles entitled “A Great Injustice.” It described a senior Canadian military lawyer in a secret letter branding a Canadian military officer as having “escaped formal disciplinary action.” The military police investigation of the officer could find no wrongdoing, but this did not stop the lawyer from denying the officer his right to the presumption of innocence.

Both the Military Police and the Judge Advocate General’s military prosecution office have failed. In the Canadian military jurisdiction, once accused the victim is stigmatized and remains beneath a lifelong cloud of criminality that will affect advancement, employment and reputation.

The psychological trauma of such careless and unprofessional constabulary and legalistic hijinks can result in a lifetime of bitterness and therapy.

The many failures of legitimacy of Canadian military justice undermine cohesion, morale, and trust by the rank and file. The system requires transparency in procedures, strengthening training in legal-ethical decision-making, and aligning military codes more closely with Canadian norms of justice.

These are areas of abysmal failure by military police investigators and the Judge Advocate General, and the willingness of the senior military staff to ignore these problems points to a profound failure in military leadership.

Judicial independence in the Indian military justice system, by Wg Cdr (Dr) U C Jha

The Institute of Military Law (IML), New Delhi, under the supervision of the Army Training Command (ARTRAC), Indian Army, has recently entered an agreement with the National Law University School of India University, Bengaluru to undertake research study on “Reforms in the Military Justice System.” Earlier, the three services were trying to ‘draft’ a common military code for themselves, a subject on which they had no expertise.  

The military legal system of India is of 1860-vintage and was framed after the 1857 First War of Independence. Most of its provisions have remained unchanged. For instance, the summary court martial was introduced in the 1860s in the Native Army to enhance powers of British commanding officers (CO) over native soldiers. The Rules of Procedure (Native) Army, Rule 12 made under the Indian Articles of War, 1869 stated: 

"When a soldier or other native amenable to the Indian Articles of war has committed an offence which is ordinarily triable by a summary court-martial, commanding officers, when determining by what court the prisoner is to be tried, are to bear in mind that the legislature, in conferring upon them the powers of a summary court-martial, intends that they shall exercise these powers."

After Independence when the Army Act, 1950 was passed by Parliament, this provision should have been omitted. Instead, it has been included in the Regulations for the Army as para 447, as follows:   

"When a person subject to the Army Act has committed an offence which can be tried by summary court-martial, officers commanding units when determining by what court the accused will be tried, will bear in mind that the legislature, in conferring upon them the powers of summary court-martial, intends that they will exercise these powers."

The system of trial by summary court martial is still prevailing in the Indian Army where a CO acts as prosecutor and judge and can try persons of the rank of non-commissioned officer and below serving under his command. The accused has the right only to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The CO can consult the officers of the judicial branch before or during the trial, however, an accused has no such right.  The Delhi High Court in Lance Naik V.P. Singh v. Union of India, [WP (C) 2511/1992 decided on January 25, 2008], while comparing the powers of the summary court martial in India, with the US commented that the issue presents a sad picture, which portrays that the law in India remains a vestige of the colonial era.

The administration of justice plays an important role in the safeguarding and protection of rights. Having an impartial military judiciary that is free from interference and pressure from other branches of government and can guarantee the due process of law is crucial for the enjoyment and protection of rights. This blog post is mainly about the need of reforms in the judicial branch of the three services of the armed forces in India.

The Orders Project -- The PBS NewsHour reports on military personnel's need for legal advice

NIMJ President Frank Rosenblatt was interviewed about The Orders Project on PBS's highly-regarded NewsHour program. Video and transcript of the segment can be found here. Excerpt:

The phone has been picking up a bit, our activity in the past three months. And some of these have related to the new military activities in the Caribbean. We are primarily getting calls, a lot of people who are tangentially involved. They aren't the people who are actually on the operations or are approving them.

But many of these are — they're performing some sort of role in between, a staff officer who's asked to apply their expertise. And they have been reaching out to us when they have been concerned that the answer that they're giving is — has been very disfavored. And they're feeling pressure from their higher-ups to convert their answer into something that is a little — to change a concur from — a nonconcur to a concur.

Conflict of jurisdiction: case goes to military court

What if a military member's conduct violates both military and civilian law? Which court system gets the case. Italy's Court of Cassation held last year that the court with specialized jurisdiction (the military court) gets the case. Details here (use Google Translate).

Amnesty International Report about Military Trials for Human Rights Abuses in Colombia

Amnesty International reports that Colombia continues to use military tribunals to try cases against military personnel accused of serious violations of human rights. 

Military courts continue to investigate possible human rights violations and crimes under international law committed by members of the Colombian security forces, despite express prohibitions in national and international standards, Amnesty International said today in a new report.

The report (in Spanish) Insist, persist, resist and never give up? Impact of the use of military criminal justice on impunity for human rights violations in Colombia shows that use of the military criminal justice system (JPM) prevents access to justice, violates the rights of victims and exacerbates the damage caused by impunity.

“The use of military criminal justice in possible human rights violations is not a technical error: it is a structural obstacle that contributes to impunity,” said Ana Piquer, Americas director at Amnesty International.

USCAAF Annual Report

You can find it here. The budget estimate for FY26 is $21,243,000. Some of the court's time is spent on the petition stage. If one looks only at the handful of cases that are decided on full opinion, the cost per case is $606,942.86.

Nigeria--prosecution of officers

A report in the Premium Times, indicates that Nigerian lawmakers move to empower civil courts to try military officers instead of court-martial, pass bill for second reading.

The bill, sponsored by Abdulaziz Yar’adua (APC, Katsina Central), seeks to modernise Nigeria’s military legal framework by repealing the Armed Forces Act 2004 and introducing new provisions to align with constitutional and democratic standards.

Aside from trials and convictions in civil court, the bill also seeks to prohibit the recruitment of persons below 18 years of age into the Nigerian Armed Forces.

The Guardian reports that,

“The Armed Forces of Nigeria remain the cornerstone of our sovereignty and national security,” he said. “Yet our military law has not kept pace with modern defence requirements.” The legislation will allow court review of military convictions, modernise disciplinary procedures, replace outdated fines with salary-based sanctions, and extend fair-hearing rights to non-commissioned officers.

Veterans Day

With appreciation to Prof. Amos Guiora, here is a link to an unusually thought-provoking panel held yesterday at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney School of Law.

The MAG Affair (one in what looks like it will be a lengthy series)

The Washington Post has this status report on the ever-hotter MAG Affair in Israel. Shira Rubin and Lior Soroka write:

This public brawl is not over the facts of the case but rather a broader struggle between a growing segment of Israelis who contend that all their soldiers are heroes who should be immune to prosecution and those who call for the rule of law in cases of misconduct.

The case is exceptional in part because it is one of the rare instances during the Gaza war when the Israeli military has sought to hold its soldiers accountable for alleged atrocities. After Hamas carried out a massive attack on southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel in response launched its devastating war in Gaza, soldiers have repeatedly posted online photos and videos of themselves carrying out acts that have been deemed by international organizations to be evidence of war crimes and violations of international law.

But human rights groups say that since the start of the war, with calls for revenge going mainstream in Israel, hundreds of incidents of unjustified killing or other violence against Palestinians have gone unpunished. Amid widespread accusations of prisoners being abused by Israeli soldiers, the IDF says it has launched only eight criminal investigations into alleged detainee mistreatment.

* * *

[Eran] Shamir-Borer said that regardless of whether the military does not prosecute soldier misconduct aggressively enough — or if [Yifat] Tomer-Yerushalmi had acted unprofessionally — the fate of the Sde Teiman case will nonetheless have consequences for the character of Israel’s army and state. “Without a functioning, credible legal institution, Israel will be compromising its own values,” he said.

The political attacks on military justice also come at a time when other elements of the Israeli judicial systems have already been under fire, legal experts say. They point, for instance, to a vicious right-wing campaign against Israeli Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, partly on the grounds that she had allegedly colluded with Tomer-Yerushalmi, and against Supreme Court judges.

“There is no doubt it’s part of the broader campaign against law enforcement institutions,” said Mordechai Kremnitzer, professor emeritus of law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute.

Mandatory pretrial detention?

The Federal Court of Malaysia has handed down a surprising decision in Maliki Halim v. Lt. Col. Shaifullizan Abd bin Aziz, Commanding Officer, No. 01(f)-30-09/2024(D) (Malaysia Nov. 10, 2025). According to this press account, the respondent was required by law to keep the appellant in close confinement for the 311 days he was imprisoned prior to trial by court-martial, as the charges were not being dealt with summarily.

Last year, the apex court agreed to grant Maliki leave based on one question of law – whether an accused can be remanded automatically under Section 96(3) of the Armed Forces Act 1972 without considering the remand procedures under the Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976 pending trial by a military court.

Maliki had tested positive for ketamine during a drug prevention operation conducted at the 5th Royal Ranger Regiment battalion at its Desa Pahlawan camp in Kota Bharu, Kelantan, in March 2014.

He pleaded not guilty in the military court but was subjected to strict detention, pursuant to which he was confined to a cell for 311 days until July 3, 2015.

Maliki filed a suit for wrongful detention, naming the 5th Royal Ranger Regiment battalion commander Shifullizan Abd Aziz, the 8th Infantry Brigade, the armed forces chief and the government as respondents.

The High Court in Kota Bharu ruled that Maliki’s detention was invalid as there were irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings against him. Maliki was awarded damages of RM300,000.

However, on Sept 14, 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned the judgment and ordered Maliki to pay the government RM40,000 in costs, giving rise to the present appeal to the Federal Court.

Aside from the merits, ten years seems a long time for the case to have been concluded.

The case is noted on the court's website but there is no link to the decision.

Bar association official says Palestinian military justice system needs fundamental reform

SadaNews reports here on a call for reform the Palestinian security forces' military justice system by Amjad Al-Shalla, Secretary General of the Palestinian Bar Association. Excerpt:

The main cornerstone for the stability of justice, its integrity and the application of the principle of transparency is the principle of independence, and therefore, the series of legal observations that we receive almost daily concerning the judicial organ of the Palestinian security forces can no longer be ignored, with all due respect.

Within the judicial body of the security forces, there are excellent judicial skills that are recognized and have decision-making power. On the other hand, to assert that decisions of the judicial bodies and/or the military public prosecutor's office must ultimately be submitted to the decision and authority of the president of the military judicial authority is an attack on and a destruction of all forms of independence, and it deprives the courts, bodies, and military public prosecutor's offices of their judicial character.

Attorney General v. Miyogo

The Court of Appeal of Kenya has ruled that it was improper to jail and discharge a 10-year member of the Defence Forces who refused for religious reasons to work on Saturdays. A summary of the decision can be found here; the judgment is not yet on the court's website.

The controversy began over 13 years ago.

The MAG Affair

Professor Benjamin Porat has written this disturbing op-ed for the Jerusalem Post about the ramifications of what is now becoming known as The MAG Affair. Excerpt:

Alongside the firm condemnation of the actions of the military advocate-general and her associates, it is also necessary to warn against those seeking to take advantage of this affair for improper purposes. For example, some are now pushing forcefully for the military advocate-general’s alleged misconduct to lead to the acquittal of suspects accused of abuse at the Sde Teiman detention facility.

To them, it must be said plainly: the rot revealed in the military advocate-general’s office does not automatically clear the suspects of abuse, nor does it justify the grave act committed by those who crossed the red line by storming an IDF base in protest of the arrests. 

Guilt in this case is not a zero-sum game: the potential guilt of the military advocate-general does not equate to the innocence of the suspects in the abuse case. Both matters must be thoroughly investigated, and all those found guilty must be held fully accountable.

Equally troubling are the supporters of the judicial overhaul, who make no secret of their intent to exploit the military advocate-general affair to advance their attempted overhaul against the judiciary. [Yifat] Tomer-Yerushalmi has done a valuable service for Justice Minister Yariv Levin; and Simcha Rothman, chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee, in their efforts to weaken and take control of the judiciary.

It will be a while before this explosive situation resolves itself. The consequences for several of Israel's politics, defense establishment, judiciary, and other institutions of government could be grave.

R v Allison, 2025 CMAC 3 - Jurisdiction of military courts over civilians

On Thursday, 6 November 2025, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC) handed down its judgment in R v Allison, 2025 CMAC 3.  It did not come as much of a surprise to counsel for the appellant.  Following the hearing of the appeal, counsel anticipated that the Court would overturn R v Wehmeier, 2014 CMAC 5.

The Court - comprised of an impressive panel of Chief Justice Gleason, accompanied by Stratas and Trotter JJA - did not expressly indicate that it was overturning Wehmeier.  However, from the perspective of the Appellant, it certainly could appear that they were.

The judgment was not particularly lengthy.  Some observers might be disappointed with the dearth of discussion in the judgment relating to the history of the jurisdiction of the Code of Servicer Discipline over civilians.  And they would be justified in that disappointment.  Similarly, there was negligible discussion of the broad panoply of scholarship on this subject.  This judgment has the potential to inform other jurisdictions, in particular, other Common Law jurisdictions.  Consequently, one might have reasonably expected a more profound discussion of the elements at issue.

The question now is whether the Appellant will seek Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).  A unanimous decision of the CMAC precludes appeal as of right.

Some observers may recall the CMAC judgment in R v McGregor, 2020 CMAC 8 - also a unanimous judgment of the CMAC - for which the SCC granted Leave to Appeal, resulting in the judgment at R v McGregor, 2023 SCC 4.  McGregor focused on the extra-territorial application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Time will tell if Allison will also benefit from a similar opportunity.  

In any event, it is certain to be the subject of scholarly analysis in the months to come.  Ironically, this judgment, which reinforced a broad application of military law over civilians, was handed down the same day that the Standing Committee on National Defence was examining Bill C-11, which (among other facets) will limit the jurisdiction of the Code of Service Discipline over 'criminal offences of a sexual nature' that are alleged to have occurred in Canada.

A novel affirmative defense

Have you considered a "I'm allergic to driving slowly" defense to dangerous-driving charges at court-martial?

Curiously, a Royal Navy officer appears to be doing just that in his trial at Bulford Military Court--according to a news report in The Telegraph (UK). His counsel also suggests that his passengers' allegations are made up, or words to that effect. See also an article in the Daily Mail (UK).

The case of “30203611 Lt T J GALLAGHER, HMS RALEIGH” appears to have begun on 27 October 2025 and may continue up to 14 November.

Unlike a U.S. court-martial, a driving disqualification order can be issued to align the outcome of the case with that of a civilian court considering the same offence.

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."