Search

The article focuses on the current issue of creating a military justice system for modern law enforcement practice. Based on the idea of military justice as a system of bodies, its composition, in the authors' opinion, should include: (1) the body that carries out the pre-trial investigation and/or supports law and order; (2) the body which oversees legality; (3) military courts. In the article, the authors consider the genesis of the functioning of each of the bodies mentioned above, which, in their opinion, should be part of the military justice system, and emphasize that the idea of creating a system of military justice in this completed form was constantly discussed among scientists and practitioners. However, after Russia's armed aggression against Ukraine began, it ceased to be an idea and should be implemented soon. Considering proposals for the creation of a pre-trial investigation body, which should investigate criminal offences committed by military personnel or other persons belonging to the armed formations as the first stage in the system of criminal justice bodies, the authors give a list of existing risks, which, in particular, include their subordination, which should not affect the independence and impartiality of the investigation. Despite some turbulence in the legislative regulation of the work of the military prosecutor's office in Ukraine, this body, with different names, structural construction, subordination and staffing for a long time, in accordance with the system of the law, carried out the pre-trial investigation of war crimes, supervision over the legality of pre-trial investigation bodies and procedural management of the investigation. Particular attention in the article is paid to arguments supporting the opinion on creating a system of military courts. The reasoning is strengthened by the appeal to the Memorandum of the Council of Europe on military courts and the experience of the functioning of military justice in Switzerland, Poland and Spain.

In the article, the authors raise issues that are relevant for the modern legal system of Ukraine, related to the need to revive the military justice system and, in particular, military courts. The authors emphasize that during the peaceful existence of Ukraine, a dangerous illusion was formed in the society regarding the unnecessary functioning of military justice in the state, however, unforeseen realities fundamentally changed the liberal ideas of peacetime. After the beginning of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the work of many courts was completely paralyzed, the judges did not have an algorithm of actions in war conditions, they urgently left for safe cities, including outside the territory of Ukraine, leaving proceedings, documentation, unfinished cases. The study allowed the authors to come to the conclusion that in a situation of continuing armed aggression, the presence of powerful Armed Forces in the state, and when the country is forced to fight for its independence, it is the military courts that are able to ensure legality and exercise justice and judicial control in accordance with their subject jurisdiction. In order to determine the optimal model of military justice, the authors examined the genesis of approaches that existed in society and characterized its attitude to the system of military justice. They analyzed the precedent practice of the European Court of Human Rights, in the context of alleged violations of Art. 6 of the Criminal Code during the administration of justice by military courts, as well as systematized key approaches developed by the Court, which are proposed to be taken into account when restoring the system of military courts in Ukraine. In addition, the authors systematized the existing models of military justice in the world, identified correlations that, apparently, led to the rejection of military justice by some countries, provided detailed arguments about the need to restore it in Ukraine, and indicated promising directions for further scientific research in this area.

Between 1914 and 1940, the fight against espionage is undergoing major changes, firstly due to a changing context and the emergence of new threats. While the police, military and political aspects of this fight have been the subject of several works, this contribution aims at a synthesis on the judicial repression of espionage and related offenses. The military justice is mobilized during the First World War do to this. Despite a great severity and sometimes expeditious trials on the front, it nevertheless manages on several occasions to resist to the moral panics linked to spying. The return to peacetime is marked by the frustration of intelligence actors confronted to criminal courts whose sentences are not considered as sufficiently exemplary. This led to several legislative changes in the 1930s, along with an increase in the number of trials.

To eradicate terrorism sternly and speedily, the Parliament of Pakistan amended the constitution and empowered the military courts to try the suspect civilian terrorists. The criticism has been copious, and multiple petitions were filed before the apex court around the country. They contended that the Parliament amended the salient features of the constitution beyond its amending powers and is liable to be struck down. Further, expanding the jurisdiction of the military courts over the alleged civilian terrorists is a contravention of their fundamental rights and the principle of judicial independence. The Supreme Court has ruled that it had no jurisdiction to examine the constitutional amendment and strike it down. Further, the Parliament was competent to expand the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians terrorists to secure the country’s safety and integrity. Hence, it is not a violation of the fundamental rights of the civilian suspect terrorists, and it is consistent with the prescribed criminal justice system. This study examines the judicial verdict rendered by the apex court of Pakistan in favour of the twenty-first constitutional amendment with the support of the eminent experts’ views taken by way of conducting face-to-face interviews.

The judiciary in Serbia is heir to a long tradition of political influence, which was particularly visible during the Communist regime after World War II. Violations of the presumption of innocence, retroactive sentencing and a denial of basic human rights are just some of the features of the work of the postwar "judiciary" in Serbia, between 1944 and 1946. This paper analyzes the implications of revolutionary legislative activity, the structure and organization of the Military Court and the Court of Honor, and examines to what extent the dominant political culture, implemented through the state coercive apparatus, influenced judicial adjudication. The paper elaborates on Radbruch's idea of "statutory lawlessness", Fuller's notion of "procedural natural law" and "internal morality of law" and argues that the postwar law of Communist Serbia did not exercise formal and procedural justice, and cannot be called a legal system in the full sense of the word.

In 1919, the foundation for Lithuania’s military judicial system was laid following the approval of the Regiment Court Statute on 13 February, the Court-Martial Statute on 27 March, and the Interim Army (Military) Court Statute on 7 July. By 1928, the system was fully developed with the release of the Statute of the Military Court of Honour, which governed the functioning of a court of honour. Thus, the permanent justice institutions of the Lithuanian Army comprised the Army (Military) Court, the Regiment Court, the Military Court of Honour, with the later addition of a temporary institution, the (Field) Court-Martial. These courts were based on the military courts of the former Czarist Russian Empire and presided over justice, discipline and order, and the speedy resolution of cases and the application of strict penalties. A military state defender/the Military Prosecutor’s Office was established, together with the Army / Military court which acted alongside. The latter was similar to the Russian Military Prosecutor’s Office, in that it performed, organised, supervised and controlled pre-trial investigations, supported charges, and supplied advice to judicial institutions on matters of procedural actions. The High Tribunal was established before the military courts, although it commenced operations at the same time. The Tribunal was entrusted with the functions of the Military Court of Cassation, since there was no separate, specialised cassation institution of military courts in Lithuania. Initially, the High Tribunal handled appeals and cassation for the Army / Military court, but only cassation for the troop court. From 1928, the Tribunal acted only in cassation. The internal structure and composition of military courts were determined by specific principles of how it was deemed courts should be organized, their various activities and functions. Accordingly, the courts were staffed with military representatives who had received a military and legal education (usually at degree level), were in good health, of the right age, and had exceptional qualities of character and manner. They were appointed by the supreme political and military leadership for a permanent and temporary office in a court. Among all the military courts, that of the army was the best in terms of its composition. Military courts exercised their intended functions, and the administration of justice aligned closely with administrative and judicial activities, which followed internal documents of the courts and the law, while efficiency of work was in line with the level of a military court. The military courts relied heavily on existing case law relating to criminal law practiced by the former the Russian Empire (as well as recent legal precedent), the statutes of local military courts, and other criminal laws. Those who came before the courts were both serving and passive military officers, military clerks, rank and file soldiers, Ministry of Defence civil servants, riflemen, war prisoners, internees and civilian cases. The matters before the court related to general crimes, crimes against military discipline, good order, service, as well offenses associated with military honour, dignity, nobility, and customs and traditions. For certain crimes and offences, military representatives could be punished by the military authorities, civil administration bodies, churches, and courts of general jurisdiction. Military courts were characterised by extensive expertise, quick decisions and strict punishments, and in response to different emergency situations that existed almost during the entire period of independence, especially during the years of conservative authoritarian rule, they were one of the most important judicial organs that maintained the régime. They dealt mostly with criminal cases and civil actions. Of all the military courts, the army court examined the greatest number of cases, including a wide variety of urgent and important cases, and highprofile cases that attracted public attention. The troop court examined fewer cases of lesser importance, while the military field courts resolved straightforward cases that were easily resolved. The Military Court of Honour examined cases involving military honour and dignity, customs and traditions. A special commission that judged only high-ranking officers operated as an alternative to the latter.

World War II represents a significant milestone in terms of historical European and world space. In the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as other south-Slavic countries, the ending of war brings the new government.Through the struggle and resistance against the occupying forces the new country with a new system was being created. In parallel with creating units of resistance(partisan units) there emerged the need for regulation of several issues related to the establishment of discipline and dealing with spies, deserters and perpetrators of serious crimes. The continuity of the former Yugoslavia was cut down and the new judiciary was established. The author discusses the issues and peculiarities of establishing military justice, which preceded the civil justice and its role in the creation of the new government.

En este trabajo me propongo explorar el funcionamiento de los Consejos de Guerra o tribunales militares que actuaron en los límites del aparato represivo legal de la última dictadura militar argentina. Estos tribunales fueron concebidos hacia fines del siglo XIX como fueros diferenciados destinados a mantener la disciplina de las Fuerzas Armadas. Sin embargo, desde comienzos de la década del sesenta, más tarde en los primeros años setenta y especialmente desde el golpe de Estado militar de marzo de 1976 se convirtieron en cuerpos extrajudiciales concentrados en acusar y juzgar a civiles por medio de la figura del delito político. La historiografía argentina aún no ha reconocido el papel significativo que desempeñaron los Consejos de Guerra al contribuir con el proceso de judicialización de la represión política, con la redefinición de una legalidad autoritaria y con una nueva racionalidad política. Abstract In this paper I will explore the mechanisms by which the councils of war or military courts that were involved in the last military dictatorship in Argentina, acted on the border between legality and illegality within the framework of the legal repressive apparatus of that time. These courts were conceived in the late nineteenth century as distinct jurisdictions intended to maintain discipline in the armed forces. However, since the early sixties, later in the early seventies and especially since the March 1976 coup, they became extrajudicial bodies that judged and prosecute civilians for political crimes. Argentina’s historiography has not yet fully recognized the significant role played by these councils of war as contributors to the process of judicialization of political repression, the redefinition of authoritarian legality and a new political rationality.

The authoritarian monarchy regime, from 1938-1940, functioned based on an exceptional status, because it was founded on a decree-law of state of siege and therefore all the power in the State was held in the hands of the army colonels and generals. By suspending the political parties, the political pluralism and the Parliament, the basic institutions of a democratic regime were abolished. Press censorship, the denying of the right to manifest and gather were assigned to the army and the militarization of the State institutions became a reality. The proclamation of the King as an absolute leader of the unique party and of the government transformed Romania into a ministerial and undemocratic monarchy, with authoritarian valence.

En este artículo se reseña el texto del Prof. Dr. Kai Ambos, Der Allgemeine Teil des Völkerstrafrechts y, al mismo tiempo, se propone la aplicación de los principales resultados de esa obra para un eventual enjuiciamiento de la tortura masiva y sistemática aplicada en Chile entre 1973 y 1990, tal y como se describe en el Informe de la Comisión Nacional de Prisión Política y Tortura (Informe Valech). Así, se comienza describiendo y analizando la sistematización propuesta por Ambos para una parte general del derecho penal internacional, luego se analiza la tortura como crimen contra la humanidad, sujeto a las reglas del derecho penal internacional. En este apartado se determinan sus elementos principales (el carácter masivo y sistemático), el Tribunal competente en Chile para conocer de estas causas y el procedimiento aplicable. A continuación se describen los hechos, tal y como se dieron a conocer en el Informe Valech, que permiten concluir que en Chile se aplicó la tortura de manera masiva y sistemática durante el régimen militar, favorecida por éste, mediante el establecimiento de una "maquinaria" de represión "legalizada". Enseguida, se determina la existencia de una responsabilidad penal internacional individual derivada de estos hechos, para, a continuación, pasar a analizar los principales problemas de la parte general del derecho penal internacional que se presentarían en el caso de juzgarse tales responsabilidades individuales, siguiendo el esquema de análisis en dos niveles propuesto por Kai Ambos, a saber, discutiendo primero los presupuestos objetivos y subjetivos de esa responsabilidad, para finalizar analizando las principales defensas que podrían oponerse por los eventuales acusados.This article reviews Prof. Dr. Kai Ambos' book, Der Allgemeine Teil des Völkerstrafrechts, and proposes the application of the main results of this book to the possible trial of the acts of massive and systematic torture carried out in Chile between 1973 and 1990, described in the report of the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (also known as the Valech Report). We therefore begin by describing and analyzing Prof. Ambos' system for a general part of international penal law, and then torture is analyze as a crime against humanity, subject to the rules of international penal law. Here we determine its main elements (a massive and systematic character), the competent tribunal in Chile for this matters, and the procedure to be applied. We next turn to the description of the facts, as rendered in the Valech Report, which brings us to the conclusion that torture was applied in Chile in a massive and systematic way during the military regime, which supported it through the establishment of a "legalized" repression "machinery". Next, the existence of an individual penal responsibility derived from these facts is determined, followed by the analysis of the main problems of the general part of international penal law which would emerge if those responsible individuals were brought to trial. In this we follow the two-level scheme of analysis proposed by Kai Ambos, namely, discussing first the objective and subjective presuppositions for this responsibility, and then turning to the analysis of the main defenses available to the defendants.

Article is written on a hot topic for the specialty "Constitutional Law of Russia". Since February 1, 2013 in Russia there was a new subject in the sphere of compliance assessment – the Court by the intellectual rights which is a part of the system of arbitration courts which decisions will contain check of legality of the legal acts carried to its competence and which are the basis of judicial constitutionalism in Russia. However the "competing" competence of the courts in the sphere of compliance assessment will remain still, then, as the judicial constitutionalism will play a huge role modernizations of legal system of Russia.