Introduction
This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and China, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, defendants’ rights, and oversight. Military law reflects each country’s constitutional design and civil-military balance, so similar labels can conceal different allocations of authority and review. All statements are anchored to October 2025 and emphasize verified institutions and statutes. Where official figures vary, approximate ranges are provided. The objective is descriptive clarity rather than evaluation, explaining how each system organizes investigation, charging, adjudication, and appeals. The discussion proceeds from country descriptions to a structured comparison, followed by brief force overviews, cautious estimates of legal personnel where possible, and a concluding sources section for further 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 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 the immediate command chain, recalibrating the balance between command responsibility and prosecutorial independence while preserving commanders’ roles in good order and discipline.
China Military Law
China maintains a specialized system of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Military Courts and PLA Military Procuratorates. Substantive and procedural rules draw from the Criminal Law, the Criminal Procedure Law, and military regulations, with adaptations for service conditions. In peacetime, criminal cases involving persons subject to military law are tried in the military courts, typically organized by theater command and service, with appeals within the military system and ultimate supervision by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) as the apex judicial organ. Prosecution is conducted by military procuratorates, which exercise functions analogous to those of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) in the civilian system. Discipline and administrative sanctions are handled under PLA regulations and orders issued under the Central Military Commission (CMC). Where offenses occur jointly with civilians or on mixed jurisdictional facts, allocation rules determine whether a civilian people’s court or a military court hears the case. Defendants are entitled to counsel and to procedural protections provided by the Criminal Procedure Law, with security-related exceptions defined by statute and implementing measures. Jurisdiction in overseas deployments is governed by Chinese law and applicable agreements with host states or international mechanisms.
Comparative Analysis
Both jurisdictions employ statute-based systems under civilian leadership at the national level, but their institutional designs diverge. First, forum structure differs. The United States maintains a standing courts-martial judiciary with a specialist appellate court in CAAF, while China uses a dedicated network of PLA Military Courts integrated into the national court system through supervision by the SPC. Second, prosecutorial independence is organized differently. The United States centralized charging for specified serious offenses within the independent OSTC, positioned outside local chains of command for covered crimes. China relies on military procuratorates that parallel the civilian procuracy and are embedded within the PLA legal system, operating under national procuratorial norms adapted to military circumstances. Third, judicial leadership and integration vary. U.S. trial and appellate military judges are uniformed judge advocates within each service, and the appellate ladder remains largely within the military system before limited Supreme Court review. China’s model connects the military judiciary to the national courts through the SPC’s supervisory role while maintaining an internal military court hierarchy, reflecting a unitary state legal structure. Fourth, rights frameworks are articulated differently. The United States codifies Article 31(b) advisements and applies the Military Rules of Evidence, closely mirroring federal criminal procedure. China applies Criminal Procedure Law guarantees to military defendants, with classified or national security elements handled under specific legal provisions. Finally, jurisdictional allocation in multinational or mixed cases is resolved in the United States through UCMJ reach and status of forces arrangements, while in China it is handled through national statutes, CMC regulations, and agreements with host states.
Conclusion
The United States and China rely on statutory frameworks to administer military justice but allocate functions through different institutional 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. China employs specialized PLA Military Courts and military procuratorates, linked to the national judiciary and procuracy through the SPC and SPP, while maintaining internal regulatory discipline under the CMC. These arrangements pursue discipline and fairness through distinct constitutional and institutional choices. 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.
China: As of October 2025, China fields approximately 2.0 to 2.1 million active personnel across the PLA Ground Force, PLA Navy, PLA Air Force, Rocket Force, and Strategic Support Force. Annual defense spending is reported at approximately 225 to 300 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.
China: Publicly available sources do not provide reliable figures for the number of PLA military judges, procurators, 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 Law and Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, national legal publications.
- Organization of PLA Military Courts and military procuratorates as reported by judicial and procuratorial authorities.
- Institutional descriptions of the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate concerning military justice supervision.
- Central Military Commission regulations and PLA disciplinary rules publicly released.
- Stockholm International Peace Research Institute summaries and official budget announcements for personnel and expenditure ranges.