Search

PETER Winch reprints 'The Universalizability of Moral Judgements' in his Ethics and Action (London, I972), 15i1-170, from The Monist 49 (1965), 196-214. Taking a principle of universalisability from Sidgwick's Methods of Ethics, Winch argues that some moral judgements are not universalisable. These are agents' judgements as opposed to spectators' judgements, where it is hard for the agent to see which of conflicting and closely-balanced moral considerations weighs most. Melville's Billy Budd gives Winch's main example. At sea on active service, Captain Vere has to decide between the demands of duty under military law, to which he is morally committed, and the demands of natural justice. Budd had struck and killed Claggart, the master-atarms. But Claggart had accused him falsely of plotting mutiny. Vere suspected the accusation was false, saw how it provoked Budd, and saw how Budd's speech-impediment frustrated him. Melville represents with rich insight Vere's moral dilemma and struggles of conscience. Eventually Vere decides he should follow naval law; Budd is hanged at dawn. Winch's treatment is also serious and sensitive. He thinks that had

There is general international acceptance at the present time of many limitations placed on the conduct of the forces of states engaged in armed conflict. It is generally agreed, for example, that prisoners of war must be treated humanely; that wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces must receive special attention; and that the position of noncombatants and persons in occupied territory must be safeguarded. Limitations on the use of gases and submarines, among others, have been widely accepted. The rules are recognized as binding even in the event of an illegal war and are accepted, at least to some extent, even by nations and groups not parties to the treaties and conventions which have sought to set forth general limitations.

The question of the legal basis for United Nations armed forces is one of immense practical significance for the future effectiveness of the organization in keeping the peace.

During the past few years, activities for the dissemination of international law applicable in armed conflicts have increased substantially. Yet there is no doubt that these efforts will have to be further intensified in order to reflect the increasing importance of humanitarian law in modern armed conflicts.

There are at present armed forces of the United States in England, Northern Ireland, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, China, India, Iceland, in British possessions in the Western Hemisphere from Newfoundland to British Guiana, and in other friendly countries. There are troops of Great Britain or her dominions in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and a few of them in the United States. English forces were a few months ago in Greece, and ours in the Dutch East Indies and Burma. There are troops of various exiled governments in England. The armed forces of Germany are in Italy, Libya, Hungary, and Rumania; and those of Japan in French Indo-China and Thailand. In every case mentioned, the visiting forces are in the foreign country by invitation, or at least with the consent, of its sovereign or government.

From the day on which the United States of America declared that it would not become a party to the League of Nations, the thoughts of many people have naturally turned to the situation created by this abstention, the seriousness of which was necessarily clear to everyone.Some think that the matter should be taken lightly. In their opinion the attitude of the United States can only be transitory and at some future time, which may, however, be still far distant, the country will modify its decision and make up its mind to occupy the place reserved for it in the League of Nations. Others allow themselves to be misguided by a different hope. According to them the League of Nations cannot live and will sooner or later disappear to make place for another grouping of nations which would win the approval and adhesion of the American Republic. Between these extreme views there lie the proposals of those who seek relief in the present situation, basing their expectations either upon such a revision of the Covenant as would satisfy the United States or upon the creation of a world association which would join the United States, the present League of Nations and other states not yet belonging thereto into one great group.

1. The neuropsychiatrist and his role in army legal procedures have been discussed from the viewpoint of the specialist and the attorney. 2. The military psychiatrist who serves as an expert witness in courts martial and military board proceedings and who wishes to avoid embarrassment should acquaint himself with the Army Regulations, Articles of War, and courts martial procedures pertaining to such subjects. 3. The specialist in mental diseases should confine his testimony, when it is an expression of his own, personal, clinical opinion, to a “belief” and not offer it as scientifically established, didactic fact; using simple, straightforward language which laymen can easily comprehend.

The study of Geoffrey's book and of the allied Welsh texts is a subject of such complexity, and has produced such a mass of technical literature, that the intrusion of a newcomer into these jealously guarded preserves of recondite scholarship is naturally liable to direct at once the cold stare of disapproval, or at best the wan smile of tolerance upon one so rash. I am not unmindful that in a previous world-conflict Sir (Emeritus Professor) Flinders Petrie put forward views on the Historia from an outsider's standpoint which were instantly demolished in a few quietly incisive notes by Professor R. W. Chambers. But, despite the vast tangle of adherent commentary which now envelops Geoffrey's book to an extent that all too often dwarfs the actual text, it seems likely that certain basic questions—is it a work of fiction or of fact, or if both, in what proportions—should be answerable to some extent by enquiring whether certain passages read convincingly as sheer invention, and if not, what prevented the author from making them so. I hope to show that one can trace in the Historia a use of certain documentary sources which to the best of my knowledge have not been recognized in full before. I venture therefore to put forward these tentative ideas in the hope that they may be followed up or refuted by those more qualified for the task than myself, examining the problem for the first time and from the outside, and in those enforced circumstances in which the only really accessible works of reference are the King's Regulations and the Manual of Military Law. As a contrast it is a pleasure to record my thanks to those who have aided me, notably Professor Ifor Williams, who has given me invaluable advice and helped to eradicate the more egregious errors from my argument.

El artículo describe que el derecho sancionador castrense deriva de la regulación constitucional del monopolio de la fuerza. Esta impone un particular deber de obediencia a los militares, que es resguardado, al mismo tiempo, por el derecho disciplinario militar y el derecho penal militar. Da cuenta que si bien la justicia penal militar no está prohibida por el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos, se considera una norma de aplicación restrictiva. Detalla los requisitos de validez que plantea el derecho internacional para la justicia militar, y cómo la jurisprudencia del sistema interamericano ha influido en la reforma de la jurisdicción penal militar en el continente.

The article is devoted to the study of problematic issues of the origin, formation and functioning of military-judicial bodies at the primary stage of the military-judicial reforms of Peter I. A brief description of the literature revealing some issues of reforming the military-judicial system of the reign of Peter the Great in the history of the Russian state is given. In the study, the place and role of the "Code or the law of conduct of general, middle and lower ranks" of 1702 (or the Code of B.P. Sheremetev) and the "Short article" of 1706 (or the Short article by A.D. Menshikov) on the primary stage of the military-judicial reforms of Peter I at the beginning of the XVIII century. The article refers to the date of the creation of Russian military vessels on January 27, 1702. On that day, by a decree, General-Field Marshal B.P. Sheremetev The Code of 1702 became valid, which legislatively ensured the administration of justice by the "assembled military court" (collegial body). An attempt has been made to establish the normative sources that formed the basis for the creation of the BP Code. Sheremetev and a brief article by A.D. Menshikov, as well as to identify the goals and objectives that were set by the legislator in compiling the described codes of conduct for military personnel in Russia. The article gives the established term in practice, which was used to refer to the reformed bodies of military justice as krigsrecht, the procedure for considering cases in a military court, the participants in the process, their rights and duties were characterized. The organs of the central military administration are mentioned, which have not lost judicial functions, despite the creation of the krigsrecht system. It is concluded that the newly created military courts sent justice, apart, closing in on the military command. On the example of specific military-criminal processes the activities of military courts (krigsrecht) the maintenance of discipline and law and order troops are shown.

On August 15, 1921, the Secretary of State of the United States acknowledged receipt from the Secretary General of the League of Nations of a certified copy of the protocol of the Permanent Court of International Justice opened for signature on December 16, 1920, by members of the League and states mentioned in the annex to the Covenant. On February 24, 1923, President Harding submitted the protocol and the accompanying statute to the Senate with a request for its consent to American adhesion with four “ conditions and understandings” explained in an attached letter from Secretary of State Hughes, dated February 17, 1923. President Harding continued to speak for the court until his death, and on December 6, 1923, President Coolidge commended the proposal to the Senate. Resolutions on the subject were introduced in the Senate by Senators Lenroot of Wisconsin (December 10, 1923), Pepper of Pennsylvania (April 7, 1924), Lodge of Massachusetts (May 5, 1924), Swanson of Virginia (May 5, 1924), King of Utah (May 20, 1924), and on May 26, 1924, Senator Pepper submitted a report from the Committee on Foreign Relations endorsing his proposal for Senate consent with radical amendments to the statute.

An examination of the history of Latin America reveals that in all but a few of the twenty countries, the activi ties of the armed forces have long influenced national policy. The military have frequently dominated politics either directly or by assuming an Olympian role as arbiter among the civilian contestants. In economic and foreign affairs, also, the voice of the military has been strong. Indeed, so active have the armed forces in Latin America been in nonmilitary activities that their military functions of defending against outside ag gression and of preserving internal order have, oftener than not, become of secondary importance. The Latin-American military, first, led a wave of revolutions which emphasized social and economic reforms. An overlapping wave of counter- revolutions, also led by the military, has drawn Latin-American governments away from such reforms. Cuba is the only Latin- American country in which the military still supports social reform. The role of the military in Latin-American politics is crucial in United States hemispheric policy because of the choice it forces upon the United States between security and social reform.

(1954). The Political and Military Strategy of the United States. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Vol. 10, No. 8, pp. 323-327.

a central staff, several thousand officers and enlisted men are utilizing their own free time in organizing, directing, and developing educational programs. It is not necessary to describe in detail the steps taken by both civilian agencies and the military in the establishment of the off-duty program.' It is interesting to note, however, that many preliminary steps had been taken almost a year before Pearl Harbor. On July 22, 1940, the Secretary of War established the Morale Division of the Army. In January of 1941 a special committee of educators presented a proposed program of recreation and education for the Army followed by a series of subsidiary reports on correspondence study and library service. On February 12, 1941, the Joint Army and Navy Committee on Welfare and Recreation was created by appointment of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy for liaison and advisory purposes, and it, in turn, appointed a Subcommittee on Education. The Navy, operating on a somewhat different basis, informally organized its educational activities on September 1, 1942, and the Educational Services Section was officially established in February 1943 by Circular Letter.

In the April issue of this Journal, Colonel Archibald King contributed, under the title “Further Developments Concerning Jurisdiction over Friendly Foreign Armed Forces,” a study designed to bring down to date his previous article on the same subject which appeared in the issue for October 1942.

The militarization of Russian life, the glorification of the military establishment and the emphasis on unconditional obedience were charac teristic features of the reign of Nicholas I. The Tsar boasted of an army of over 800 000 men,1 still basking in its triumph of 1812 and the liberation of Europe from Napoleonic occupation. This large army, the largest in Europe, stationed over an immense territory, yet concen trated for the most part in Poland and the western provinces, was administered with ruthless determination, and spectacular punishments ?running the gauntlet?were widely used as instruments of repression. The sharply outlined distinction between the world of the officers and that of the rest of the army reflected a society based on serfdom where the nobility still exercised well-nigh absolute authority over their serfs. This essay is an attempt to outline the organization of the military judiciary in peacetime and to illustrate, with references to certain aspects of procedure, the double standard, based on social criteria, prevailing in the penal law. It is presented as a contribution to an understanding of the history of Russian administrative institutions.

a necessary prerequisite for the strictly service training. Before they go to him, the Air Force instructor in Navigation, for example, expects his pupils to know their school mathematics, as does also the gunnery instructor in the Artillery or the Navy. School physics and technical subjects are essential prerequisites for the military courses concerning tanks and motor vehicles, and the corps of staff clerks need to know their short

Recreation has a firmly established place in the Armed Forces. As our military establishment has grown and become an important segment of our national life, recreation programs in the Armed Forces have also developed to the point where they are becoming accepted as an important but normal phase of the American recreation movement. Outdated philosophies of military recreation based on charitable considerations are being replaced by modem concepts of the function of free-time programs in military settings.

In conclusion and to answer more particularly the questions listed at the beginning of this article, it should be observed that military justice in determining the issue of mental accountability is not controlled by any conventional, legal or medical definition of sanity and that certainly it is not restricted to the concepts of the English law of one hundred years ago. On the contrary, military justice has evolved a unique standard of mental accountability which includes not only the concepts involved in the traditional so-called right and wrong test but also the more liberal and humane concept of moral justice involved in the so-called irresistible impulse test. In incorporating this latter concept into its standard of mental accountability, military justice has recognized the scientific truth that the capacity to feel remorse and to distinguish between right and wrong does not necessarily imply power to control conduct. It has thus compromised the law's traditional arbitrary concept that all persons wi...

THE treaty of peace between Germany and the Allied and Associated Powers, signed at Versailles on the 28th of June, 1919, formally sanctioned the principle that individuals belonging to the armed or naval forces of the adversary, as well as his civil functionaries, are responsible under military law for offenses against the laws and customs of war and may be tried and punished for such offences. The treaty declares that Germany recognizes "the right of the Allied and Associated Powers to bring before military tribunals persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war." It adds: "Such persons shall, if found guilty, be sentenced to punishments laid down by law. This provision will apply notwithstanding any proceedings or prosecution before a tribunal in Germany or in the territory of her allies." The treaty further requires Germany to hand over to the Allied and Associated Powers, or to such of them as shall so request, all persons accused of having committed an act in violation of the laws and customs of war, who are specified either by name or by the rank, office, or employment which they held under the German authorities, and to furnish "all documents and information of every kind, the production of which may be considered necessary to the full knowledge of the incriminating facts, the discovery of offenders, and the just appreciation of responsibility.' This appears to be the first treaty of peace in which an attempt

The national status of an individual is a matter of importance at all times, and is becoming increasingly so. It assumes special significance during hostilities between states. An extreme case is that of the dual national of two states that are at war with each other.