Military Law Review

Military Law Review
Title	Military Law Review
Discipline	Military law, international law, criminal law
Abbreviation	Mil. L. Rev.
Publisher	United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps
Country	United States
Frequency	Annual
History	1969–present

Military Law Review Military Law Review is a scholarly law journal focusing on military justice, operational law, and national security law, published by the United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps and associated with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School. The Review addresses intersections among Uniform Code of Military Justice, Geneva Conventions, Nuremberg Trials, International Criminal Court, and comparative practice in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, and Canada. Contributors have included judges, practitioners, and academics from institutions like the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, United States Supreme Court, Harvard Law School, and Yale Law School.

History

The Review traces its origins to post-World War II reforms following events such as the Nuremberg Trials, the establishment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1950, and doctrinal developments after the Korean War and Vietnam War. Early volumes reflected debates spurred by cases like Ex parte Quirin and policy documents such as the Manual for Courts-Martial. During the late 20th century, scholarship engaged controversies arising from Rosenberg v. United States-era civil liberties discussions, the Gulf War, and legal responses to the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). The Review has published analyses contemporaneous with promulgation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice revisions, the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and legislative actions in the United States Congress affecting military justice.

Scope and Subject Matter

The Review covers a spectrum of topics including courts-martial procedure, appellate review exemplified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, evidentiary standards informed by cases like Kotteakos v. United States, and comparative military justice systems in nations such as France, Germany, and Japan. It addresses international humanitarian law issues arising from instruments including the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions, operational law questions tied to doctrine from NATO, United Nations Peacekeeping, and coalition operations in contexts like Operation Desert Storm and Operation Enduring Freedom (2001–2014). The Review also analyzes intersections with constitutional law demonstrated in litigation before the Supreme Court of the United States, administrative law matters involving the Department of Defense, and human rights law in forums such as the European Court of Human Rights.

Publication and Editorial Practices

Published annually, the Review follows editorial conventions paralleling leading law journals such as the Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal, with citations formatted in line with The Bluebook and editorial boards drawn from The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School, practitioners from the Judge Advocate General's Corps (United States Army), and visiting academics from institutions like Georgetown University Law Center. Peer review and symposia have featured participants from the American Bar Association, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Institute of International Law. Special issues have responded to events such as the promulgation of the Rome Statute and rulings by the International Court of Justice.

Influence and Reception

The Review has shaped doctrine cited by military appellate courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and civil courts such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and informed policy within the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense. Its articles have been cited in decisions discussing detention policy emerging from Boumediene v. Bush and trials arising from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp litigation, and have influenced scholarship at Columbia Law School, Stanford Law School, and Oxford University. Reception among scholars of international criminal law, practitioners from the International Criminal Court, and advocates in organizations like Human Rights Watch has been significant for debates on command responsibility and lawful targeting.

Notable Cases and Articles

Notable case analyses published include commentaries on Ex parte Quirin, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, and appellate decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Influential articles have addressed themes such as command responsibility traced to precedents like the Yamashita War Crimes Trial, admissibility of evidence in light of Miranda v. Arizona principles, and the legal architecture of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Symposia have produced leading essays on the implications of the Rome Statute for national systems, the legal ramifications of drone operations exemplified by United States v. Lindh-era debates, and scholarship connecting military justice to transitional justice efforts seen in South Africa and Rwanda.

Related Institutions and Journals

Related institutions include The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School, the Judge Advocate General's Corps (United States Army), the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the Department of Defense. Peer journals and comparative publications include the Journal of Military Ethics, the American Journal of International Law, the International Review of the Red Cross, the Naval Law Review, and the Air Force Law Review. Academic centers with overlapping research agendas include Harvard Law School's Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, the Oxford University's Changing Character of War Centre, and the London School of Economics's International Relations department.

Category:Military justice journals