Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Holtzman ◽  
Barbara S. Jones ◽  
Victor Stone ◽  
Thomas W. Taylor ◽  
Patricia A. Tracey
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Holtzman ◽  
Barbara S. Jones ◽  
Victor Stone ◽  
Thomas W. Taylor ◽  
Patricia A. Tracey

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Holtzman ◽  
Barbara S. Jones ◽  
Victor Stone ◽  
Thomas W. Taylor ◽  
Patricia A. Tracey

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Holtzman ◽  
Barbara S. Jones ◽  
Victor Stone ◽  
Thomas W. Taylor ◽  
Patricia A. Tracey

1955 ◽  
Vol 55 (8) ◽  
pp. 1244
Author(s):  
A. Arthur Schiller ◽  
William B. Aycock ◽  
Seymour W. Wurfel

1975 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 477
Author(s):  
Charles A. Leonard ◽  
William T. Generous

2021 ◽  
pp. 9-57
Author(s):  
Keith Grint

This chapter begins with defining mutiny and exploring its origins. It considers the nature of military relationships across time before focusing upon the British Army Act (1955) and the American Uniform Code of Military Justice. The issues of mutiny as a collective act, and the active or passive role of those involved in mutinies, are used to illustrate the intricacies of the legal framework which then flows into using cases of mutiny on slave ships to highlight the importance of the historical context. The nature of sovereign power is then used to illustrate both the coercive control over military subordinates and the fragility of that very same coercion. This leads into the way the act of mutiny is socially constructed—in other words, what counts as ‘mutiny’ is a subjective not an objective construction. The chapter concludes with two sections, the first of which lists the ‘Refrains of Mutiny’: the patterns that recur across space and time, from the social construction of mutiny to the importance of establishing who the enemy is, the role of antecedence, the default response of the authorities, the importance of scapegoating, the omnipresence of the phenomena, the role of the heroic leader, the impact of serendipity, the relational nature of leadership, and finally the role of enthralment. The final section focuses on various explanations of mutiny, using material drawn from political revolutions and industrial relations to highlight the similarities and differences between these and mutinies, and relates such disputes to the difference between agonism and antagonism.


2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Crosbie ◽  
Meredith Kleykamp

Sociologists have largely ignored the study of military tribunals and justice systems. We offer a descriptive overview of military systems of justice intended for use by political and military sociologists, focusing on the case of the United States armed services. We contextualize the principal military systems of justice and provide extended discussions of how the American case connects through formal and informal channels to international legal structures. American military law and justice link three key legal realms: international law on conflict and security at the global level; the so called National Security Constitution at the national level; and the Uniform Code of Military Justice at the institutional level.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document