How Do Other Countries Structure Their Military Justice Systems Compared to the United States?

Military justice systems differ mainly in two choices: who decides to prosecute (a commander or an independent prosecutor) and where service members are tried (a separate military court or ordinary civilian courts). The United Kingdom uses a standing Court Martial with an independent Director of Service Prosecutions; Canada has a Director of Military Prosecutions, and since August 17, 2026, its courts martial no longer have jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences alleged to have been committed in Canada, except where charges had already been laid, and those offences now rest with civilian authorities; Germany has no peacetime military criminal courts at all. The United States moved charging decisions for serious offenses to independent special trial counsel for offenses committed after December 27, 2023, but keeps courts-martial as a separate system.

Three questions that separate the systems

Who decides whether to prosecute? A commander, or a prosecutor outside the chain of command.
Who decides guilt, and by what vote? A panel of service members, a professional judge, or a civilian jury.
Is there a separate military court? Or are service members tried in the ordinary criminal courts?

United Kingdom

A standing court. The Armed Forces Act 2006 provides: “There shall be a court, to be known as the Court Martial”, which “may sit in any place, whether within or outside the United Kingdom” (s. 154). A judge advocate presides, and lay members (service personnel) decide the finding.

An independent prosecutor. The Director of Service Prosecutions is appointed by the Crown (s. 364), and the Service Prosecuting Authority describes itself as “the principal prosecuting authority within the Service Justice System”, responsible “for the prosecution of all service offences before the Service Courts.”

Verdict thresholds. Section 160 of the 2006 Act, as amended by the Armed Forces Act 2021 (Schedule 1), requires a finding agreed by:

Lay members	Votes required for a finding
3	At least 2
4	At least 3
5	At least 4
6	At least 5

Compared with the United States. A U.S. court-martial with members requires the concurrence of at least three-fourths of the members present to convict (six of eight at a general court-martial, three of four at a special court-martial), and a death sentence requires unanimity (Article 52). The two systems both reject simple majorities, but the numbers differ: two of three is a lower fraction than three-fourths.

Canada

A military prosecutor and courts martial. Under Canada’s National Defence Act, the Minister “may appoint an officer who is a barrister or advocate with at least ten years standing at the bar of a province to be the Director of Military Prosecutions” (s. 165.1), and “A General Court Martial may try any person who is liable to be charged, dealt with and tried on a charge of having committed a service offence” (s. 166), subject to the offences that section 70 places outside court-martial jurisdiction.

Sexual offences moved to civilian authorities (2026). Bill C-11, the Military Justice System Modernization Act, received Royal Assent on June 18, 2026. National Defence announced that as of August 17, 2026, the Canadian Armed Forces no longer have authority to investigate new Criminal Code sexual offences alleged to have been committed in Canada for the purpose of laying a charge, and that “Courts martial will also no longer have jurisdiction over CCSOs alleged to have been committed in Canada, except for those matters where charges have already been laid.” Section 70 of the National Defence Act now provides that “A court martial does not have jurisdiction to try any person charged with any of the following offences committed in Canada”, and its list includes sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code. The list applies to offences committed in Canada.

Background: the 2021 recommendation. On October 20, 2021, former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, leading the Independent External Comprehensive Review, gave the Minister of National Defence an interim recommendation: “All sexual assaults and other criminal offences of a sexual nature under the Criminal Code, including historical sexual offences, alleged to have been perpetrated by a CAF member, past or present … should be referred to civilian authorities.” Civilian authorities, it continued, “should exercise investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction over all sexual offences by CAF members.” If civilian authorities decline, the matter returns to the Canadian Armed Forces to decide on discipline. The Minister accepted the recommendation on November 4, 2021 (Government of Canada, IECR interim recommendations).

Compared with the United States. The U.S. approach moved the prosecution decision for sexual and other covered offenses to independent military special trial counsel; it did not move those cases out of the military justice system. Canada’s 2026 change does, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada.

Germany

Germany’s Basic Law allows military criminal courts only in narrow conditions: “The Federation may establish federal military criminal courts for the Armed Forces. These courts may exercise criminal jurisdiction only during a state of defence or over members of the Armed Forces serving abroad or on board warships” (Art. 96(2)). The same article places such courts “under the aegis of the Federal Minister of Justice.” Absent those conditions, soldiers accused of crimes are tried in the ordinary criminal courts.

Where the United States sits

	United States	United Kingdom	Canada	Germany
Separate military criminal court	Yes (courts-martial convened case by case)	Yes (standing Court Martial)	Yes (General Court Martial, National Defence Act s. 166)	Only in a state of defence, abroad, or aboard warships (Basic Law Art. 96(2))
Prosecution decision for serious offenses	Special trial counsel for covered offenses after Dec. 27, 2023; convening authority otherwise	Director of Service Prosecutions	Director of Military Prosecutions; since Aug. 17, 2026, Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada are outside court-martial jurisdiction, except where charges had already been laid (National Defence Act s. 70)	Civilian prosecutors and courts
Vote to convict (members)	At least three-fourths	2 of 3, 3 of 4, 4 of 5, or 5 of 6	Not addressed here	Not applicable

The U.S. reforms that produced the current structure are listed in the major reforms Congress has enacted, and the comparison with U.S. civilian federal courts is in how the military justice system compares to civilian federal criminal courts.

When forces are stationed abroad

Allied forces stationed in another ally’s territory follow status of forces agreements; the U.S. side of deployment cases is covered in military justice in deployed and combat environments. Under Article VII of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, the sending state’s military authorities have the primary right over offenses solely against the sending state or its own personnel and over offenses arising out of official duty, and the receiving state has the primary right in other cases.

Sources

This article is general information about military law, not legal advice for any individual case.