Military justice
Some states enable their military justice systems to deal with civil offenses committed by their armed forces in some circumstances.
Since the principle of delegatus non-potest delegare has not achieved rigid standing in Canada, the QR&Os authorize other military officials to generate orders having similar, but not equal, status.
For example, officer cadets attending military college are organized and subject to regulations more appropriate for their academic success than the enforcement of discipline, as might be expected of fully trained members.
Volume IV, Appendix 6.1 of The Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Military Colleges (QR Canmilcols) applies.
A judge advocate general (JAG) has headed the Canadian military legal branch since before the First World War.
In Canadian practice, armed combat is a strictly regulated environment and legal officers are a crucial part of the planning that goes into operational decisions.
The military jurisdiction starts from the moment when a person reports to duty or was liable to report to duty and lasts to the moment when the person has been discharged from service and, in case of conscripts and involuntarily activated reservists, has also left the military area.
[4]: § 1 These include e.g. various types of murder, assault, theft, fraud, forgery, computer hacking and illegal divulging of classified information.
When the brigade commander determines that he cannot give sufficient punishment, he will transfer the matter to the public prosecutor who will commence prosecution in a civilian court.
The Supreme Court of Finland has two officers with at least colonel's rank as members when handling military crimes.[5]: Ch.
An exception is formed by the disciplinary arrest, which may be sentenced for up to 30 days and is served in the detention facilities of the convict's garrison.
[3]: §6:1 Typically, this is the case when a reservist is absent from an obligatory refresher exercise or a conscript is, after the commission of crime, declared unfit for duty for medical or security reasons.
[8] Similarly to state military servants, persons serving in a deployed force on an international mission may be administratively dismissed by the commander of the Finnish contingent.
[9] A conscript or a reservist cannot be dismissed but their service can be suspended by the brigade commander if they are suspected of having committed a crime which shows that they may endanger the safety of others.
Following this, the person may be declared permanently unfit for duty by the Defence Forces regional office for safety and security reasons.
The legislator has purposefully given the military superiors the legal tools by which to maintain discipline by punishing even the slight appearances of bad conduct if they feel it necessary.
Nonetheless, there exist numerous acts that only concern soldiers describing their special status, their rights and duties.
The head of the unit as immediate superior who acts as primary disciplinary master has the exclusive right to choose: non-judicial punishment (such as fines, curfews, arrests up to seven days), forwarding the decision to the next superior officer of the unit (arrest then can be extended up to 21 days) or calling the military service court (Truppendienstgericht) which has the power for further punishment (like degradation and shortening the salary up to five years).
The military courts in India are coming under extreme stress with the establishment of Armed Forces Tribunal in 2007.
[22] There is increasing voice in the country for the reform on the lines other liberal democracies are seeing in their military justice system.
[23] The United Kingdom's arrangements for justice in the armed forces dates back many centuries to the Articles of War.
In the previous decade the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had considerable impact on the administration of military justice, particularly the need for the independence of the courts martial system.
[24] One motivating factor behind the changes in the legislation combining discipline acts across the armed forces is the trend towards tri-service operations and defence organisations.
Summary dealing by a Commanding Officer (CO) is the central feature, this is acceptable within the ECHR because an accused always has the right to elect trial by the Court Martial.
Typically a CO is a Lieutenant Colonel or equivalent (NATO grade OF-4), but a CO may delegate some powers of summary dealing to a subordinate.
The military judicial system is headed by the Judge Advocate General who is a civilian and part of the Ministry of Justice.
[25] Administrative procedures enable a service man or woman to be discharged for unsatisfactory behaviour in a process similar to that in the private sector.
Article I, Section 8 permits the U.S. Congress to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
The offenses covered by the UCMJ include those encompassed by "high crimes and misdemeanors" which covers officials generally, and includes perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order.
It also includes ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for civilians, on the grounds that more is expected of military personnel by their oaths of office.
