Military tribunals and their scope
Military Tribunals and Their Scope
What Are Military Tribunals?
Military tribunals are judicial bodies established by military authorities to try members of the armed forces and, in certain circumstances, civilians for violations of military law or offenses related to national security, wartime conduct, or military discipline.
They differ from civilian courts in:
Jurisdiction: Military tribunals typically handle offenses committed by military personnel or under military law.
Procedures: Procedures may be distinct and sometimes less formal than civilian criminal courts.
Composition: Usually composed of military officers or judges.
Scope of Military Tribunals
Jurisdiction Over Military Personnel
Military tribunals have jurisdiction over military members for offenses such as insubordination, desertion, espionage, and war crimes.
Jurisdiction Over Civilians (Limited and Controversial)
In exceptional circumstances, such as during wartime or under martial law, tribunals may try civilians, often raising constitutional and human rights concerns.
War Crimes and International Law
Military tribunals also serve to try individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or violations of the laws of armed conflict.
Limits on Scope
The power of military tribunals is generally limited by constitutional protections, such as the right to a fair trial, and by legislation that regulates their jurisdiction and procedures.
Supervision and Appeal
Military tribunals are subject to review by higher military courts or civilian courts, depending on jurisdiction.
Important Case Laws on Military Tribunals and Their Scope
1. Ex parte Milligan (1866), United States
Facts: Lambdin P. Milligan, a civilian, was tried by a military commission during the American Civil War for conspiracy against the government.
Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunal lacked jurisdiction to try a civilian when civilian courts were open and functioning.
Significance: Established the principle that military tribunals cannot replace civilian courts when the latter are operational, protecting civilian due process rights.
2. Ex parte Quirin (1942), United States
Facts: German saboteurs were captured and tried by a military tribunal during WWII.
Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the military tribunal, distinguishing lawful combatants and unlawful enemy belligerents.
Significance: Affirmed the power of military tribunals to try enemy combatants and unlawful belligerents under the laws of war.
3. Re Keenan (1998), Australia
Facts: Challenged the jurisdiction of a military tribunal to try a service member for alleged offenses.
Holding: The Australian High Court held that military tribunals have jurisdiction consistent with the Defence Force Discipline Act, but must observe principles of procedural fairness.
Significance: Confirmed military tribunals’ jurisdiction over service members and underscored the necessity of fairness in proceedings.
4. R v. Mason; Ex parte Everingham (1976), Australia
Facts: Addressed whether military tribunals could try civilians.
Holding: The court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians except under statutory authority and within constitutional limits.
Significance: Reaffirmed limits on military jurisdiction over civilians in peacetime.
5. Al-Adahi v. Obama (2012), U.S. District Court
Facts: Concerns over military commissions trying detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Holding: The court scrutinized the procedural safeguards and jurisdiction of military commissions, requiring compliance with due process.
Significance: Highlighted the tension between national security and fair trial rights in military tribunal contexts.
6. Attorney-General v. Jonathan Cape Ltd (1976), United Kingdom
Context: Though not a military tribunal case per se, it discusses executive powers and limits on tribunals’ secrecy and accountability.
Relevance: Provides insight into the balance between executive/military confidentiality and the public’s right to justice.
Summary of Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction Limited to Military Personnel | Military tribunals try service members under military law | Re Keenan (1998) |
| Limited Jurisdiction Over Civilians | Civilians generally not subject to military tribunals without statutory authority | Ex parte Milligan (1866), R v. Mason (1976) |
| Jurisdiction over Enemy Combatants | Tribunals may try unlawful combatants and war criminals | Ex parte Quirin (1942) |
| Requirement of Procedural Fairness | Military trials must meet fairness standards | Re Keenan (1998), Al-Adahi v. Obama (2012) |
| Supervision by Civilian Courts | Military tribunal decisions can be reviewed judicially | Various supervisory rulings |
Conclusion
Military tribunals are specialized judicial bodies designed primarily to maintain discipline within the armed forces and adjudicate matters of military law. While their jurisdiction over military personnel is well established, their power to try civilians remains highly limited and controversial, especially in peacetime. The case law reflects a balancing act between military necessity and constitutional protections of fair trial and due process. Judicial oversight ensures that military tribunals operate within their lawful bounds.
RELATED Blog
0 comments