Drafters of international humanitarian law (IHL) treaties clearly envisaged a role for military justice systems in the implementation and enforcement of these treaties. Nevertheless, the adequacy of military jurisdiction over violations of international law is being questioned in certain spheres. In the context of these debates this article considers the domestic rationale for military justice systems and explores the role and limits of military jurisdiction in combating impunity for violations of IHL. In focusing on the need to effectively repress and suppress all violations of IHL, the article addresses the extent to which some sort of military justice may be necessary for the effective enforcement of certain provisions. It also explores the way in which increased scrutiny of the impact of these justice systems on the rights of individuals has led to restrictions on the format and scope of military jurisdiction. Although there are difficulties in internationalising the discussion on military jurisdiction because of differences in domestic legal traditions, the choice of effective IHL enforcement mechanisms, which includes the choice of military or civilian jurisdiction, is key in combating impunity for violations of this body of law and protecting the rights of those involved.

中文翻译：

---

违反国际人道法的军事管辖范围

国际人道法 (IHL) 条约的起草者明确设想军事司法系统在这些条约的实施和执行中发挥作用。然而，在某些领域，对违反国际法行为的军事管辖权是否充分受到质疑。在这些辩论的背景下，本文考虑了军事司法系统的国内原理，并探讨了军事管辖权在打击违反国际人道法的有罪不罚现象中的作用和局限性。在关注有效镇压和制止所有违反国际人道法行为的必要性时，本文讨论了某种军事司法对于有效执行某些规定的必要程度。它还探讨了对这些司法系统对个人权利的影响进行更严格的审查导致对军事管辖权的形式和范围的限制的方式。尽管由于国内法律传统的差异，将军事管辖权的讨论国际化存在困难，但选择有效的国际人道法执行机制，包括选择军事管辖权或民事管辖权，是打击违反这一法律体系的有罪不罚现象的关键，保护相关人员的权利。