Introduction
This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and Vietnam, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, 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 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 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.
Vietnam Military Law
Vietnam’s framework embeds military justice within the national courts and procuracy. Substantive criminal norms derive from the Penal Code and service regulations, while procedure follows the Criminal Procedure Code with adaptations for persons subject to military law. Adjudication is conducted by the People’s Military Courts, which are specialized courts established within the national judiciary and organized by zones and service structures. Prosecution is handled by the People’s Military Procuracy, paralleling the civilian procuracy and exercising investigation supervision and charging authority in military cases. Appeals progress within the military court hierarchy, with legal supervision and unification of jurisprudence provided by the Supreme People’s Court; procuratorial oversight is exercised by the Supreme People’s Procuracy. Disciplinary and administrative measures are governed by defense regulations and directives issued under the Ministry of National Defense and the Central Military Commission, with administrative-justice review available in defined categories. Defendant rights track the Criminal Procedure Code, including counsel, judicial warrants, and multi-tier appellate review, while security-related provisions specify exceptions and handling of classified matters. Jurisdiction for conduct abroad is allocated by domestic law and any applicable treaties or status of forces arrangements.
Comparative Analysis
Both jurisdictions are statute-based and operate under national civilian leadership, yet their institutional designs differ in notable ways. First, forum structure diverges. The United States maintains a permanent courts-martial judiciary with a specialist appellate court in CAAF, creating a largely self-contained military appellate ladder. Vietnam uses People’s Military Courts embedded in the unified state judiciary, with supervision by the Supreme People’s Court to ensure national consistency in law. Second, prosecutorial configuration varies. The United States centralized charging for specified serious offenses within the independent OSTC, structurally separated from local command for covered crimes. Vietnam relies on the People’s Military Procuracy, a specialized branch of the national procuracy, to supervise investigations and bring charges, reflecting a unitary prosecutorial model that mirrors the civilian system. Third, judicial leadership and integration take different forms. U.S. military judges are uniformed judge advocates within each service; appellate review remains within the military judiciary before limited Supreme Court access. Vietnam’s military courts are part of the national court network, with jurisprudential unification by the apex civilian court, signaling stronger integration with centralized state institutions. Fourth, rights articulation differs in source and emphasis. The United States codifies Article 31(b) warnings and applies Military Rules of Evidence that parallel federal criminal procedure. Vietnam applies the Criminal Procedure Code to military defendants, including counsel and warrant requirements, while providing security-focused procedures for classified cases. Finally, jurisdictional allocation abroad is managed in the United States through UCMJ personal jurisdiction and status of forces agreements, whereas Vietnam employs national statutes, defense regulations, and bilateral arrangements to determine forum, custody, and evidence handling.
Conclusion
The United States and Vietnam regulate military justice through statutes and centralized institutions but 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. Vietnam employs People’s Military Courts and a People’s Military Procuracy integrated into the national judiciary and procuracy, with supervisory roles for apex civilian bodies and administrative discipline under defense authorities. 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.
Vietnam: As of October 2025, Vietnam fields approximately 470,000 to 500,000 active personnel across the Vietnam People’s Army Ground Forces, Navy, Air and Air Defense Force, with border and coast guard organizations supporting. Annual defense spending is approximately 5 to 7 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.
Vietnam: Publicly available sources do not provide reliable figures for the number of 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.
- Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code of Vietnam; laws organizing the People’s Courts and the People’s Procuracy.
- Descriptions of People’s Military Courts and People’s Military Procuracy in official legal publications.
- Ministry of National Defense and Central Military Commission regulations on discipline and administration.
- Government of Vietnam public documents on force structure and personnel; recognized datasets summarizing defense expenditure ranges.