Introduction
This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and Russia, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, rights, and oversight. Military law reflects each country’s constitutional architecture and civil-military balance, so similar terminology can mask different allocations of authority and review. All statements are anchored to October 2025 and emphasize verified institutions and statutes. Where official figures vary across public releases, approximate ranges are used. The aim is descriptive clarity rather than evaluation, explaining how each system organizes investigation, charging, adjudication, appellate review, and the interface with civilian courts. The discussion proceeds from country descriptions to a structured comparison, followed by concise force overviews, cautious estimates of legal personnel where possible, and a closing sources section for independent verification.
United States Military Law
The United States system is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial. Jurisdiction covers active-duty personnel worldwide and certain reserve and retired categories. Trial forums comprise summary courts-martial for minor offenses, special courts-martial for intermediate matters, and general courts-martial for the most serious crimes. Appellate review proceeds through the service Courts of Criminal Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), with limited U.S. Supreme Court review. Rights include advisement under Article 31(b) and access to military or civilian defense counsel. Since late 2023, specified serious offenses are investigated and charged by independent Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), which make disposition decisions outside local command chains, recalibrating the balance between command responsibility and prosecutorial independence while preserving commanders’ roles in good order and discipline.
Russia Military Law
Russia’s military justice is embedded in the national judiciary. Substantive offenses derive from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, while procedure follows the Criminal Procedure Code, supplemented by defense regulations and the Disciplinary Regulations of the Armed Forces. Adjudication of crimes by persons subject to military jurisdiction is handled by the military courts, which form part of the unified court system under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. At first instance, garrison military courts hear cases; appeals go to district (naval) military courts, with cassation and supervisory review available in designated cassation courts and the Supreme Court. Prosecution is carried out by the military prosecutor’s offices within the Office of the Prosecutor General, and preliminary investigation in many categories of cases is conducted by the Military Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee. Administrative and disciplinary matters are governed by defense statutes and internal regulations, with judicial review available for certain administrative acts. Where conduct involves civilians or mixed facts, allocation rules in the Criminal Procedure Code determine whether a civilian court or a military court sits. Defendant rights mirror the general criminal procedure guarantees, including counsel, judicial warrants, and adversarial trial, subject to national security provisions defined by statute. Jurisdiction for offenses abroad is set by domestic law and applicable treaties or status of forces arrangements.
Comparative Analysis
Both jurisdictions maintain statute-based systems under national authority, yet their institutional designs diverge in important ways. First, forum structure differs. The United States runs a standing courts-martial system with a specialist national appellate court in CAAF, producing a largely self-contained military appellate ladder. Russia tries service-member criminal cases in military courts that are structurally part of the national judiciary, with appeals and cassation routed through the ordinary multi-tier court network culminating in the Supreme Court. Second, prosecutorial configuration reflects different models. The United States centralized charging for specified serious offenses within the independent OSTC, positioned outside local command chains for covered categories. Russia assigns charging to military prosecutors embedded within the national prosecutorial system; investigative functions for many offenses rest with the Investigative Committee’s military directorate, reflecting a unitary state investigation-prosecution framework. Third, judicial leadership and integration vary. U.S. military judges are uniformed judge advocates, and appellate oversight remains within the military judiciary before limited Supreme Court access. Russia’s military judges sit within a judiciary unified under the Supreme Court, ensuring jurisprudential coherence across military and civilian branches through shared cassation and supervisory mechanisms. Fourth, rights articulation is framed differently. The United States codifies Article 31(b) advisements and applies Military Rules of Evidence paralleling federal criminal procedure. Russia applies general Criminal Procedure Code guarantees to military defendants, supplemented by statutes and defense regulations, with security-related provisions specifying classified proceedings when applicable. Finally, jurisdiction abroad is allocated in the United States through UCMJ personal jurisdiction and status of forces agreements, while Russia relies on national criminal law, military court competence rules, and bilateral or multilateral agreements to determine forum and custody.
Conclusion
The United States and Russia both regulate military justice through comprehensive statutes and centralized institutions, but they allocate functions through distinct channels. The United States operates a bespoke court-martial system with service appellate courts and CAAF, complemented by independent prosecution of defined serious offenses via OSTC. Russia employs military courts and military prosecutors integrated into the national judiciary and prosecutorial hierarchy under the Supreme Court, with investigations led in many cases by the Investigative Committee’s military units. These arrangements pursue discipline and fairness through different constitutional and institutional paths. Findings reflect law and publicly available information as of October 2025. This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Brief Military Force Overview
United States: As of October 2025, the United States fields approximately 1.3 to 1.33 million active-duty personnel across the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard. Military expenditure for 2024 is approximately 997 billion USD.
Russia: As of October 2025, Russia fields approximately 1.1 to 1.3 million active personnel across the Ground Forces, Navy, Aerospace Forces, and other formations, with additional mobilized or contract elements reported. Annual defense spending is commonly estimated at approximately 100 to 150 billion USD depending on methodology and exchange-rate treatment.
Estimated Number of Military Attorneys
United States: Approximately 4,600 to 5,000 active-duty judge advocates serve across the services as of October 2025, distributed among the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
Russia: Publicly available sources do not provide reliable figures for the number of military judges, prosecutors, or uniformed legal advisers. The estimate reflects broad secondary analysis as of October 2025.
Sources and Method
- Uniform Code of Military Justice and Manual for Courts-Martial, United States.
- Offices of Special Trial Counsel, official U.S. Department of Defense and service materials.
- Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Disciplinary Regulations of the Armed Forces.
- Federal constitutional and federal laws on the judicial system and military courts; organizational materials of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
- Office of the Prosecutor General descriptions of military prosecutor jurisdiction; Investigative Committee materials on the Military Investigative Directorate.
- Ministry of Defence and recognized public datasets on personnel and expenditure ranges, including widely used international compilations.