Military courts and civilian trials: Constitutional necessity or democratic compromise?

Abstract

This paper discusses whether the prosecution of civilians in military tribunals is a constitutional response to extraordinary security crises or a return to democracy at the expense of rule-of-law theocracies. It combines a doctrinal constitutional study of texts, amendments, emergencies, and landmark cases, combined with comparative case studies and descriptive indicators of practice (trial length, pattern of sentence, access to appeal, and transparency) in a mixed-methods approach. According to the results, constitutional necessity is most plausible where exceptional jurisdiction is strictly characterized as time-limited, narrow, and open to both significant civilian appellate procedure and civilian, reasoned judgments. The article concludes with safeguard-based criteria on the evaluation of civilian trials of military and policy recommendations on enhancing ordinary court and ensuring security requirements.