The system of military law of Ukraine and Great Britain in modern international law

Abstract

The article researched the issues of the military justice system in modern international law. The purpose of the article is to analyze the current state of military justice in Ukraine and Great Britain, make proposals for the creation of an integrated system of military justice of Ukraine. The paper is executed by applying the general research and special methods of scientific cognition. The article analyses the basic doctrinal approaches of military justice is one of the elements of ensuring the military security of the state. The military security of the state is seen as the protection of state sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic constitutional order.Compared to Ukraine, in the United Kingdom, most military offenses against the service law are dealt with by commanders through a summary hearing. The commander may consider the offense by a summary hearing if the offense is minor and the accused has the rank of commander of the Navy, lieutenant colonel of the army or the Royal Marines or below his rank, or commander of the wing in the army. The difference applied in the army and the Royal Air Force between district military and municipal military courts (with more limited full-scale remote preparations of military district courts than in other military aircraft) was also identified. A military court may hear any breach of the law of service, including all contractual procedures under the laws of England and Wales. The procedure in this similar procedure is the Royal Court in England and Wales. The court is presided over by a lawyer, and there is a panel (similar to a jury) of three seeds (depending on the seriousness of the crimes) of officers.In support of the claim for autonomy of military law, there is a strong argument that the ethos, tasks and responsibilities of the armed forces are unique, and therefore the legal system must reflect this. Whether the core values defined by the services, which include moral integrity, loyalty, honesty, mutual support, self-discipline, and group identification (as opposed to the pursuit of individual superiority), are the only reserve of members of the Armed Forces debatable. Indeed, the uniqueness of the claimed “unlimited liability” of personnel services and the degree of self-sacrifice that military service may require in certain circumstances. The last reflection when we look at the detailed civil law rules regarding the Armed Forces is that it may reassure military sociologists rather than lawyers who are assessing whether the military spirit is really destroyed by lawyers’ violins and the cult of individualism. However, if this were indeed the case, it would certainly not be without irony that the recent rapid increase in the number of military lawyers has taken place, and may well continue, will be not only a consequence of the jurisdiction of military law but also a cause of it.