A Commonwealth milestone in principled and practical reform
By His Honour Judge Alan Large, Judge Advocate General of the UK Armed Forces, and Francisca Pretorius
In many smaller Commonwealth jurisdictions, Defence Acts were enacted at independence and have remained largely unchanged for decades. The result is that military justice systems have not kept pace with developments in international humanitarian law, human rights law, or constitutional jurisprudence. In February 2026, at the Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting in Fiji, Law Ministers formally endorsed the Commonwealth Military Justice Principles and the accompanying Commonwealth Model Law on Military Justice for Smaller Armed Forces.
The initiative was the culmination of a multi-year effort, and reflects sustained collaboration between judges, practitioners, and member country representatives across the Commonwealth, with consistent support from the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and the Commonwealth Magistrates' and Judges' Association.
Origins of the Initiative
The Commonwealth Military Justice Transformation Project commenced in 2022 pursuant to a mandate issued by Law Ministers at the Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting that year. The work was undertaken under the auspices of the Commonwealth Secretariat's Office of Civil and Criminal Justice Reform (OCCJR). At the time, Francisca Pretorius served as Head of the OCCJR, working alongside His Honour Judge Alan Large.
The Commonwealth Military Justice Principles
The first phase of the initiative focused on the development of high-level Principles.
An expert working group, led by His Honour Judge Alan Large and supported by Francisca Pretorius, engaged in nearly a year of structured online meetings before convening in Stellenbosch, South Africa, in November 2023. At that meeting, the group finalised a draft set of ten Principles designed to articulate foundational standards for smaller armed forces.
These Principles were subsequently reviewed and refined through a formal intergovernmental Working Group, with the text shaped to reflect both expert insight and member-state ownership.
The Principles are non-binding but function as aspirational benchmarks against which jurisdictions may assess existing systems and orient future reform. They articulate core standards relating to independence and impartiality of military courts, separation of investigative, prosecutorial, and judicial functions, fair trial guarantees and due process, qualifications and security of tenure for judicial officeholders, appellate and review mechanisms, transparency and accountability, and alignment with international legal obligations.
To our knowledge, this is the first time an intergovernmental body has formally endorsed a consolidated set of military justice principles tailored specifically to smaller armed forces, significant for the development of military justice globally.
The Model Law for Smaller Armed Forces
The Model Law constituted a distinct, though complementary, second phase of the project.
Smaller armed forces operate within particular structural constraints. Limited personnel numbers and institutional proximity can make separation of functions more complex to operationalise. Reform must therefore be principled, but also realistic and scalable.
It was against this backdrop that the Model Law was drafted by Christopher Griggs of New Zealand, drawing on comparative Commonwealth practice and informed by the Principles.
The Model Law provides a practical legislative template that is adaptable to different constitutional arrangements, scalable to smaller force structures, and structured to include options in certain areas. It is not a prescriptive instrument; it offers a carefully designed toolkit from which jurisdictions may draw when modernising Defence Acts.
Endorsement by Law Ministers
The endorsement by Law Ministers in Fiji confirms that both the Principles and the Model Law have moved beyond expert recommendation to formal Commonwealth recognition.
This endorsement does not impose binding obligations on member states. It affirms a shared commitment to principled reform and provides a structured pathway for those wishing to undertake legislative review.
The Road Forward: From Endorsement to Implementation
While the endorsement marks a significant milestone, implementation now becomes the central task. Several member states have already expressed interest in technical assistance to review and update their defence legislation in light of the new benchmarks. The Commonwealth Secretariat is engaging with interested jurisdictions to support legislative gap analyses, drafting assistance and adaptation of the Model Law, stakeholder consultations, judicial and practitioner training, and implementation planning.
For this phase, the Principles provide the normative compass and the Model Law provides the structural blueprint. The pace and depth of reform will ultimately depend on member state engagement and ownership, and early signals are encouraging.
The endorsement of these instruments is not the end of the project; it is the point at which the real work begins.
The Commonwealth Model Law on Military Law for Smaller Armed Forces begins with a declaration that only sustainable forests were used in printing. For good reason: it comes in at a book-like 82 pages. Of this, the lion's share is devoted to Summary Hearings: principles 26-89, and additional punishment charts at the end. This begs the question of why the rules for Summary Hearings, which are intended to be used by non-lawyers, are written with such elaboration and procedural exactitude that lawyers are required to interpret them.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem is presented by small nations that do not even have military court systems. If those nations adhere to the Commonwealth Principles, whose Principle 10 insists that all disciplinary matters should be able to heard in a military court at the accused's election, the ability to administer basic discipline is put in jeopardy. This problem is consequential because IHL demands that armed forces administer discipline to deter and address military misconduct.