Spotlight on Goldstein Center Faculty Research
Get To Know Our Work!
Military courts are a common feature of national judicial systems around the world. Militaries operate their own judicial systems to prosecute service members for a narrow range of military offenses, such as insubordination, that are not covered by the civilian legal system. Yet, when military personnel commit human rights violations, this parallel legal system in which a military is able to sit in judgment of its own actions challenges the rule of law and allows for potential impunity. In short, when military courts overstep their boundaries, victims do not receive justice, future human rights violations are not deterred, and civilian control of the armed forces and democracy are weakened. Scholars and practitioners recognize that the transfer of human rights cases to civilian courts is a necessary first step in holding human rights violators accountable. In a new book project, Judges and Generals: Military Justice Meets the Rule of Law, Brett J. Kyle (University of Nebraska Omaha) and Andrew G. Reiter (Mount Holyoke), employ a new innovative framework of “legal subordination” of the armed forces to examine the political role of military courts. The project develops the first comprehensive record of militaries’ judicial powers and practices regarding accountability for human rights abuses. It further explains processes of reform of military court jurisdiction offering potential to inform human rights activism in this important domain by explaining existing cases of success and failure, as well as risks involved with different reform strategies.