A Military Justice Solution in Search of a Problem: A Response to Vladeck

Authors

Geoffrey S. Corn, South Texas College of LawFollow
Chris Jenks, Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of LawFollow

Abstract

In “Military Courts and Article III,” law professor Steve Vladeck proposes a wholesale replacement of the foundation upon which court-martial jurisdiction has stood since the inception of the United States. In an effort to provide a unifying theory grounded in international law, Professor Vladeck fails to properly distinguish the jurisdiction established by Congress to regulate the armed forces from the jurisdiction established to punish violations of the laws of war. This conflation yields confusion about military jurisdiction which ripples throughout the theory. Our response, which centers on courts-martial, argues that Professor Vladeck has offered a solution in search of a problem. Moreover, Professor Vladeck’s analysis fails to acknowledge the importance of deference to Congress’s exercise of its war powers, and the resonance of U.S. and English history familiar to the Framers. We write to clarify the categories of military jurisdiction, their basis, and their rationale.

Publication Title

Georgetown Law Journal Online

Document Type

Article

Keywords

military justice, court-martial, military courts, article III, Uniform code of military justice, UCMJ, international law, law of armed conflict, commission, military, tribunal, law of war, occupation

Recommended Citation

Geoffery S. Corn; Chris Jenks, A Military Justice Solution in Search of a Problem: A Response to Vladeck, 104 GEO. L.J. ONLINE 29 (2015-2016)