Landmark ruling in South Korea

Disrespect? Consider this recent decision from the Republic of Korea's Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court ruled that a petty officer in the Navy did not commit the offense of insulting a superior under the Military Criminal Act when, aboard a naval vessel, the petty officer threw off a headset and said, "The commander is a mess," after a superior, a captain, refused to accept the petty officer's opinion. As a result, a Supreme Court precedent established in 1999 was changed after 27 years.

The Supreme Court en banc (presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) on the 22nd overturned the lower court ruling that had sentenced Navy Petty Officer First Class A to six months in prison, suspended for one year, for the offense of insulting a superior under the Military Criminal Act, and sent it back with a ruling of not guilty.

The full article from ChosunBiz can be found here. The decision is not yet available on the English page of the Supreme Court's website.

Proceedings of the 3d International Military Justice Forum

Gwenaël Guyon, Evert Kleynhans, Anna la Grange, Sonja Els, Mariella Terzoli, (eds), Military Justice: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Developments (RIDP, Libri 15, 2026), now available here. Here is the Preface (by the Editor of this blog):

There is, in English, an old saying that ‘the third time is the charm’. So it is with the International Military Justice Forum, the third iteration of which was held in Paris in 2025. Building on the first two, which were held in Paris in 2021 and Stellenbosch, South Africa, in 2023, the third demonstrated even more compellingly the need for a regular international gathering of experts in both the history of military justice and the issues arising from contemporary state practice in this important field. The third forum also set the stage for the next one, which will be held in London in 2027. All of the forums have been the result of selfless teamwork between scholars at St. Cyr and elsewhere.

The presentations reproduced in this volume of the International Review of Criminal Law reflect a broad range of interests and perspectives and put on display the robust nature of debate surrounding the issues explored at the sessions. Importantly, this is not a choir that sings in unison or expresses a ‘party line’. Some of the contributions generated a good deal of heat, while others covered less controversial ground. Which of the contributions that follow falls in which of these categories I will leave for the reader to speculate on.

The International Military Justice Forum helps to fill a void in contemporary scholarship. While the Law of Armed Conflict receives a great deal of attention in the literature and through professional meetings sponsored by, among others, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Society for Military Law and the Law of War (including its national groups, some of which are remarkably active), military justice itself merits greater attention. And it is getting that attention, not only through the International Military Justice Forum, but also through such recent and very welcome developments as the creation of the Forces Law Review and the Commonwealth’s Military Justice Principles and the related Model Law on Military Justice for Smaller Armed Forces. That particular project is among those discussed in the current volume, and, as a non-Commonwealth advisor, it gives me great pleasure to report that the Law Ministers meeting in Fiji has endorsed these groundbreaking efforts.

As for history, I will also note the recent French decision to promote Alfred Dreyfus, who figured in perhaps the most famous court-martial of all time, to the rank of brigadier general—sadly, long after this death. That action dramatically shows how the past and present remain closely linked in the field of military justice.

Much remains to be done, and as you read the papers assembled here, I hope you will think about military justice issues and areas that particularly merit further consideration. What challenges will emerge from events like the conflicts in eastern Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere? Will the Commonwealth Principles and Model Law spark renewed interest in military justice reform in non-Commonwealth countries? Are the Decaux Principles and related Yale Draft dead, or may we hope that they too will attract new interest? Or, given the current struggle between democratic and autocratic forces playing out in so many places around the world lead to new challenges. Will hard-fought reforms, such as those enacted in the United States in restricting the power of commanders to decide who shall be prosecuted for what, be built upon or unraveled? No one has a crystal ball, but the combination of historical and contemporary scholarship presented in Paris in 2025 cannot help but inform future developments.

Admirals in Court -- summer reading

Ahoy. For summer reading, see Matthew Barrett, "Review of "Admirals in Court: Discipline, Honour and Naval Justice, 1778-1814" by John Morrow," 35 Can. Mil. Hist. 1 (2026). Excerpt:

The controversial execution of Admiral John Byng on 14 March 1757 inspired Voltaire’s oft-quoted remark regarding the British Navy, “in this country it is found good, from time to time, to kill one Admiral to encourage the others." Byng had been court martialled for failing to do his utmost to engage the French fleet at the Battle of Minorca during the Seven Years’ War. He was sentenced to death by firing squad as mandated by the Articles of War. Only an amendment over two decades later would permit alternative lesser punishments for this type of offence before the enemy (p. 10). While no other British admiral suffered the extreme penalty after Byng, nine flag officers were tried by courts martial for offences ranging from military misconduct to personal impropriety during the period between 1778 and 1814. In Admirals in Court, John Morrow of the University of Auckland studies each court martial case in compelling detail and traces how the proceedings and outcomes reveal much about the British Navy’s historical culture and its understanding of duty and discipline. 

HRW: Peru, veto military justice bill

Human Rights Watch has issued the folowing news release:

Peru: Veto Military Justice Bill

Would Open the Door to Impunity for Abusive Police, Armed Forces Personnel

Peruvian President José María Balcázar should veto a bill that would expand the military justice system, Human Rights Watch said today. The bill would effectively open the door to impunity for police officers and members of the armed forces responsible for human rights violations. 

On June 23, 2026, Congress passed a bill that would modify the Military Police Criminal Code, expanding the definition of “service-related offenses,” which are handled by the military justice system. Military courts lack the independence and impartiality to adequately investigate human rights violations by security forces. Judges and prosecutors, appointed by the president, hold military rank. The changes would benefit, among others, police and military officers responsible for the killings of dozens of protesters and bystanders during demonstrations in late 2022 and early 2023.

“This bill is a recipe for impunity,” said Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Signing this bill into law would give current members of the police and the military carte blanche to commit new human rights violations.”

Under the Peruvian constitution, President Balcázar has 15 days to decide what to do with the bill after Congress sends it to his office for signing. That period ends on July 17. If Balcázar lets the 15 days pass without either signing or vetoing the bill, Congress is allowed to sign it into law. If he returns the bill to Congress, the legislation would be considered by the newly elected bicameral Congress, which takes office on July 28 and would need an absolute majority to pass the law. 

The bill expands the definition of “service-related offenses” to include any crime committed by the military or the police “in the context of a state of emergency”. 

The bill would also require the Supreme Court to “give preference to the military police jurisdiction” when resolving jurisdictional disputes.

“Welfare provision into a dead letter”, Supreme Court of India awards back wages to CRPF constable who was discharged due to disability

Live Law has reported, that the Supreme Court of India awarded INR 1.25 crore (Indian Rupees 12.5 million) to a Central Reserve Police Force ("CRPF") constable, who was unlawfully discharged on account of losing his eyesight during service due to an ophthalmic condition in 1996. The State submitted that, the constable lost his right to be reinstated under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 since he opted for grant of Disability Pension. Further, it was claimed that his reinstatement was barred since the application of above Act was exempted for the CRPF in year 2002 by Notification. 

The Apex Court rejected the above submissions. Critical of the apathetic conduct of the State, the Court observed that as a model-employer they should have been aware of their statutory obligations & provided an alternate role to the constable suitable to his disability by themselves. 

Accordingly, the Court directed that the Constable be paid INR 1.25 crore (Indian Rupees 12.5 million) , towards back wages, interest, and costs. The decision affirms Section 47 of the PwD Act, 1995, which forbids discrimination against any government employee based on their disability, acquired during the course of service.