Introduction
This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and Ukraine, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, defendants’ rights, and oversight. Military law reflects each country’s constitutional architecture and civil-military balance, so similar terminology 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 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.
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 the immediate command chain, recalibrating the balance between command responsibility and prosecutorial independence while preserving commanders’ roles in good order and discipline.
Ukraine Military Law
Ukraine’s framework is anchored in the Constitution of Ukraine, the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, together with defense statutes and disciplinary regulations. Military courts were abolished in the late 2000s, so criminal offenses by service members are adjudicated in the ordinary courts. Prosecutorial functions in military cases are handled by the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office in the Military and Defense Sphere within the Office of the Prosecutor General, a body that supervises pretrial investigations and brings indictments in offenses committed by persons subject to military service. Investigations of crimes by officials, including many service-related offenses, are carried out by the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI), with internal security units and other investigative bodies competent in defined categories. Appellate review follows the ordinary hierarchy through appellate courts to the Supreme Court on points of law, with the Constitutional Court hearing constitutional complaints and abstract review. Administrative and disciplinary measures are governed by the Disciplinary Statute of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and related regulations, with judicial review available in administrative courts for certain acts. Under ongoing martial law, special procedural and jurisdictional rules apply, but criminal adjudication remains in the civilian court system; rights protections track the Criminal Procedure Code, including counsel, judicial warrants, and multi-tier appellate review, with specific provisions for national security, secrecy, and combat conditions.
Comparative Analysis
Both jurisdictions employ statute-based systems under civilian authority, yet their institutional choices diverge in structure and emphasis. First, forum structure is distinct. The United States maintains a dedicated military judiciary with tiered courts-martial and a specialist national appellate court in CAAF. Ukraine routes criminal cases involving service members to the ordinary courts, having abolished military courts, and manages military discipline through statutory administrative regimes. Second, prosecutorial configuration differs. The United States centralized charging for specified serious offenses within the independent OSTC, positioned outside local command chains for covered crimes. Ukraine assigns prosecution of service-member crimes to the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office in the Military and Defense Sphere, structurally within the national prosecution service and outside the operational chain of command, with investigations often led by the SBI. Third, judicial leadership and integration take different forms. U.S. military judges are uniformed judge advocates, and appellate oversight remains largely within the military judiciary before limited Supreme Court access. Ukraine embeds adjudication fully in the civilian judiciary, with doctrinal coherence ensured by the Supreme Court and constitutional supervision by the Constitutional Court. Fourth, rights frameworks are articulated differently. The United States codifies Article 31(b) advisements and applies the Military Rules of Evidence paralleling federal criminal procedure. Ukraine applies the Criminal Procedure Code to all defendants, including service members, with wartime adjustments that preserve core guarantees while accommodating secrecy and operational constraints. Finally, jurisdictional allocation abroad is handled in the United States through UCMJ personal jurisdiction and status of forces arrangements. Ukraine applies domestic statutes, martial law decrees, and international agreements to determine forum, custody, and cooperation when conduct occurs outside national territory or in active combat zones.
Conclusion
The United States and Ukraine regulate military justice through comprehensive statutes and centralized institutions but allocate functions through different channels. The United States operates a bespoke courts-martial system with service appellate courts and CAAF, complemented by independent prosecution of defined serious offenses via OSTC. Ukraine tries criminal cases involving service members in the ordinary courts, with specialized military-and-defense prosecutors and investigations frequently led by the State Bureau of Investigations, while discipline proceeds under defense statutes with administrative-justice review. These arrangements pursue discipline and fairness through distinct 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.
Ukraine: As of October 2025, Ukraine fields approximately 600,000 to 800,000 active personnel across the Ground Forces, Air Force, and Navy, with additional formations operating under wartime mobilization. Annual defense spending is commonly estimated at approximately 30 to 60 billion USD depending on methodology, exchange rates, and inclusion of external assistance.
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.
Ukraine: Publicly available sources do not provide reliable figures for the number of prosecutors, investigators, judges, or uniformed legal advisers dedicated to military cases. 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 materials.
- Constitution of Ukraine; Criminal Code of Ukraine; Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
- Laws and regulations on the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office in the Military and Defense Sphere and the State Bureau of Investigations.
- Disciplinary Statute of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and defense regulations under martial law.
- Supreme Court of Ukraine, appellate court structure, and Constitutional Court materials on review and jurisdiction.
- Government publications and recognized datasets summarizing personnel and expenditure ranges.