- United States,
- Courts-martial and courts of inquiry,
- Great Britain,
- Comparative law
The mandate for Charter-based judicial review of military law is now in its second decade. Comparative analysis of the relationship between military law and the civilian judiciary in common law countries reveals that Canadian courts benefitting from this mandate are so placed within the constitutional structure as to be uniquely able to engage in substantive review of the adherence to the principles of fundamental justice by Canadian courts martial. Accordingly, the question of the jurisdiction of military tribunals which has formed the focal point internationally for judicial review is of passing significance in Canada. The yet critical issues of civilian appellate review and judicial independence can be and are being addressed directly in Canada. In 1990, the Court Martial Appeal Court, labouring under a constitutionally inadequate jurisdiction of its own, struck down the most common form of court martial-the Standing Court Martial-triggering legislative reform that created the first truly independent military judiciary. Similar challenges to the constitutionality of the General Court Martial succeeded in the 1992 Supreme Court decisions in Généreux and Forster, which confirmed in principle the adequacy of the amendments to the structure of the courts martial and the justifiability of the remaining differences from civilian judicial processes.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/janet_walker1/70/