JURISDICTION OF MILITARY COURTS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PAKISTAN AND THE UNITED STATES

Abstract

Military courts jurisdiction has always remained the debate among legal experts, especially in countries balancing national security and constitutional protections. This study compares Pakistan and the United States' military courts, focusing on how the legal framework developed along-with historical developments, jurisdiction and scope, procedural safeguards, compliance with international human rights standards, and effects on civil-military relations.

Military courts in Pakistan, established under constitutional amendments and the Pakistan Army Act, are important for the immediate counter-terrorism measure, particularly in the aftermath of the 2014 APS attack. However, there remains a persistent debate on limited procedural safeguards, lack of transparency, and jurisdiction over civilians, which create dire human rights questions. On the contrary, the military courts of the USA function under UCMJ and MCA, affording more due process protections and are thus visible to the public ire of critics especially with regards to the case of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. The study found that although both systems are embedded in military discipline, the U.S. military justice system has stronger due process guarantees and includes civilian oversight. Pakistan's military courts, on the other hand, seem to have some challenges both in terms of transparency and adherence to constitutional principles. The paper ends with recommendations for strengthening procedural safeguards in Pakistan so that both the countries will comply with the international legal standards in terms of justice and accountability.