Women in Uniform: Sexual Assault, Civilian Oversight, and the Limits of Military Justice

Abstract

The United States Military faces a significant challenge when it comes to addressing the concerning levels of Military Sexual Assault (MSA) that occur within its ranks. After a decade of political lobbying, Special Trial Counsels were introduced into the military justice system as the convening authority to handle all future sexual assault cases, effectively stripping military commanders from their traditionally held prosecuting authority. The shift occurred after a push from the media and public opinion, forcing Congress to enact legislation that ensured a more independent, fair, and equitable process of justice for MSA victims. Even after the establishment of these STC, a debate continues among military officials, politicians, scholars, and social activists, on whether the military justice system is capable of achieving a degree of independence that can help to lower the concerning levels of MSA in the United States and across the globe. Other countries’ militaries have attempted to address the same issue through different initiatives. Legally, Canada became a military pioneer when it removed prosecution from the military and adjudicated its ability to civilian courts in 2021. The United Kingdom has relied on a hybrid system where cases are prosecuted in a military office, under civilian oversight. This thesis utilizes two military case studies, the United Kingdom and Canada, to explore their existent MSA prosecution system. I use civil-military relations literature and empirical data to explore the balance of civilian authority within a military context. Consequently, this thesis argues that given international policies, scholars, and victim’s support for independence, the United States military should begin a gradual process by which civilian are given greater oversight of military prosecution, eventually handing control of military sexual assault cases to civilian courts.