martial law

1. Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.
2. The law imposed on an occupied territory by occupying military forces.

For more information on martial law, visit Britannica.com.

Martial law is government by military authorities when the normal machinery of civilian administration has broken down as a result of disaster, invasion, civil war, or large-scale insurrection. It is not to be confused with military law. Any trial of civilians held by military authorities under martial law would not enjoy the status of a court martial.

In the Middle Ages, martial law meant law administered by the court of the constable and marshal and from that court originated both the martial and military law of today. In Britain, it now means the law applicable by virtue of the royal prerogative to foreign territory occupied for the time being by the armed forces of the British Crown. Except insofar as the ordinary courts of the occupied territory are permitted to continue to exist and administer, justice is administered by military tribunals according to rules established by the military authorities of the occupying forces.

Martial law may also be established within a state itself in substitution for the ordinary government and legal system during serious disturbances. Again, in this event, justice is administered by military tribunals. Usually while the military authorities are restoring order, their conduct cannot be called into question by the ordinary courts of law. After the restoration of order, the legality of the military's actions might well be theoretically capable of examination. In Britain, this has not occurred since the 17th century. It cannot be declared in time of peace and it is uncertain whether martial law may be declared in emergency by act of royal prerogative or whether it always requires the approval of parliament. In either case, as mentioned above, the civil courts cannot interfere with the acts of the military in pursuance of their powers.

In other countries, a state of war has not necessarily been a prerequisite to a declaration of martial law or, more commonly, a ‘state of siege’. In April 1989, students, teachers, and human rights activists began demonstrating in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. The demonstrations took place against the communist regime in China, against a backdrop of reform in other communist countries. Over the following months the number of demonstrators swelled to over one million people. Deng Xiao Ping evidently believed that this constituted a serious threat to his government and declared martial law on 20 May 1989; 300, 000 troops, largely from rural areas in China, were sent to Beijing. The People's Liberation Army put an end to the occupation on 3-4 June: up to 3, 000 people lost their lives, as many as 10, 000 were wounded, and there were countless arrests. This brutal use of martial law incensed world opinion but firmly re-established the hard-line Chinese regime.

Another example of a communist regime that used the tool of martial law to suppress internal dissent was Gen Wojciech Jaruzelski's Polish government in 1981. Although he used considerable force to crush the Solidarnosc (Solidarity) Trade Union, the morality of this imposition of martial law is less clear cut. The Solidarity movement was the most serious challenge to the Soviet system since the Prague Spring (in 1968). The Soviet government was worried by the Polish Communist Party's apparent willingness to compromise with the dissident movement and even though Stanisaw Kania, head of the Polish party, assured Moscow control could be maintained, the KGB believed otherwise. Thus, the Soviet army held some very threatening manoeuvres on the Polish border. Kania and Jaruzelski, who had become PM, visited Moscow and were told ‘the socialist community is indivisible and its defence is the concern of not just each individual state, but the socialist coalition as a whole’. This was a very explicit warning. Jaruzelski declared martial law in December 1981 and used the army and police apparatus to quash, albeit temporarily, the Solidarity movement. He also arrested many of its leaders. It is not clear whether he imposed martial law out of a genuine desire to suppress Solidarity or to forestall an imminent invasion by the Soviet army, thus avoiding both turning Poland into a battleground like Hungary in 1956 and having a Soviet-imposed regime whose repression would have been much worse. If the latter is the case, this is an example of using martial law for a political end vital to the continued independence of the country. In February 1996 a parliamentary committee leaned to the latter interpretation, recommending that Jaruzelski should not face prosecution for declaring martial law in 1981.

— Chris Mann

sometimes defined as merely the will of the commanding general or whatever is necessary to preserve governmental authority, is the temporary control by military authorities of the civilian population in a particular area. Its application is generally to battle zones during war or areas of great or potentially great public disturbance in peacetime.

Americans rejected martial law in the Declaration of Independence, indicting George III for having put colonial Massachusetts under control of the British army. The U.S. Constitution limited the federal government's application of martial law by the provision in Article I, section 9, concerning the right of habeas corpus.

After 1798, the new government differentiated between military law and martial law. The former are the rules that govern members of the armed forces. The latter is the mechanism under which the military governs civilians. Martial law by federal authorities was viewed as permissible only under extraordinary circumstances which, as with suspension of habeas corpus, presumed congressional authorization.

Martial law was imposed by U.S. forces briefly on New Orleans during the War of 1812 and on areas of Mexico occupied by the U.S. Army during the Mexican War. But it became a major issue in the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln and the Union army used it in various states to restrain behavior by civilians both in the war zones and eventually in areas far removed from battle such as Ohio and Indiana. This virtual independence of military courts from supervision by civilian courts raised troubling questions; after the war, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1866) severely limited its application by the federal government and precluded it where civil courts functioned. Although martial law has been declared by state governors for areas hit by natural disasters or extensive violence, the federal government, with the exception of the treatment of the Japanese Americans on the West Coast in World War II, has seldom used martial law in the United States in the twentieth century.

[See also Civil‐Military Relations: Civilian Control of the Military; Civil‐Military Relations: Military Government and Occupation; Japanese‐American Internment Cases; Justice, Military: Military Courts; Merryman, Ex Parte; Supreme Court; War, and the Military.]

Bibliography

• James E. Sefton, The U.S. Army and Reconstruction, 1967.
• Robin Higham, ed., Bayonets in the Streets: The Use of Troops in Civil Disturbances, 1969.
• Robert W. Coakley, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789–1878, 1988.
• Paul L. Murphy, ed., The Bill of Rights and American Legal History, 1990.
• Mark E. Neely, Jr., The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties, 1991.
• Clayton D. Laurie, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1879–1945, 1993

Military government involving the suspension of ordinary law.

See the Introduction, Abbreviations and Pronunciation for further details.

The resort to military force as a temporary expedient in exceptional circumstances to restore order and uphold civilian government. Troops may be deployed or the constitution suspended with the military assuming some or all of the functions of government.

— Ian Campbell

The term has been used in two senses which may cause confusion:

1. The rules which apply to military discipline and related matters.
2. The rules and discipline which exist at times of public emergency, and displace the ordinary principles of the law. This notion has been of greater constitutional importance. This was one of the grievances objected to in the petition of right and the Bill of Rights.

The prevailing legal opinion is that there is no such thing as ‘martial law’ except in so far as the crown must have certain powers to act in the case of emergency, e.g. to put down a rebellion. This is not a special code of law but rather an example of the principle of necessity.

Martial Law is most easily defined as the application of military force to control all or part of an area where civilian authority is ineffective or in defiance of higher authority. Martial law often applies to battle theaters where army commanders require control of civilian resources close to front lines. In this vein, Andrew Jackson imposed martial law in New Orleans in 1814. More recently, martial law has been used to support civilian authorities in times of natural disaster. Americans traditionally view martial law with great suspicion because of the power it grants to the army and its commanders. The Declaration of Independence condemned George III's use of the British army to "render the military independent of, and superior to, civil power." The Constitution's guarantee of the right of habeas corpus protects U.S. citizens from potential arbitrary excesses of martial law. Only the president can declare martial law on the federal level and only governors may do so on the state level.

Despite American ideals opposing martial law, presidents have used it to deal with crises since the founding of the nation. George Washington declared martial law to quell the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. Washington set an important American precedent by ordering the army to turn the rebels over to civil courts for trial. By not making the rebels subject to military law, Washington established the ideal that martial law should be used to bolster, not supersede, legally constituted local powers.

In order to avoid the often-unpopular step of declaring martial law, authorities have frequently called out troops without a formal declaration. Several governors used this tactic during the late nineteenth century in order to deploy local militia and guard units to quell railroad and mining strikes. These incidents raised questions about the proper chain of command for local militia, with governors seeking to maintain control of their militia without federal interference. In 1877, the governors lost the struggle when the National Guard Act made local militia subject to federalization in the event of a national emergency, as declared by the president.

On other occasions, presidents have used martial law when local authorities appeared unwilling or unable to enforce the law. During the 1950s and 1960s, Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson used federal troops or federalized National Guard troops to enforce civil rights laws against the will of state governors, most notably at Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957, Oxford, Mississippi, in 1962, and Selma, Alabama, in 1965. In these cases, martial law effectively negated the power of recalcitrant local authority. In cases where local authority simply breaks down or cannot control an urban disturbance or natural disaster, martial law can be used to support local law enforcement.

Nevertheless, American suspicion of concentrated power has meant that martial law has only been declared thirty times, usually in localized areas and for brief time periods. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has limited the legal scale and scope of martial law. In the 1866 case Ex Parte Milligan, the court ruled that the military may not try civilians when civil courts are still functioning. In 1932, in Sterling v. Constantin, the Supreme Court asserted the right of judicial review over martial law.

Controversial uses of the military in domestic incidents, such as General Douglas MacArthur's 1932 eviction of the Bonus Army from Washington, D.C., have undermined the public's faith in martial law except in extraordinary circumstances. Excessive uses of martial law for purely political purposes have also tarnished the legitimacy of martial law. In 1935, the governor of arizona tried unsuccessfully to impose martial law in order to stop a federal project on federal land. Two years later, the governor of Rhode Island used martial law to enforce a ban on horse racing. To American sensitivities, these incidents did not warrant the drastic step of imposing martial law, whether at the state or federal level.

The regular military has normally been reluctant to participate in martial law situations. The army has not traditionally been trained to handle domestic disturbances, and it has not historically seen itself as a national police force. Moreover, declarations of martial law sometimes carry political overtones that the army prefers to avoid, as in the declaration of martial law by Indiana's Republican governor to head off a Copperhead movement in 1862 or the struggle in the wake of riots in Detroit in 1967 between President Johnson and Governor George Romney of Michigan, a potential Republican rival for the presidency in the 1968 election.

In practice, martial law in the United States usually involves the careful blending of military and civilian authorities. U.S. military authorities rarely completely take over situations, with the civil rights era being an important exception. More commonly, the military follows the Whiskey Rebellion model of deploying to support and assist local officials. This tradition fits in with perennial American fears of standing armies and concentrated power.

Bibliography

Coakley, Robert. The Role of Federal Military Forces in DomesticDisorders, 1789–1878. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, 1988.

Higham, Robin, ed. Bayonets in the Streets: The Use of Troops inCivil Disturbances. 2d ed. Manhattan, Kans.: Sunflower Press, 1989.

Neely, Mark, Jr. The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and CivilLiberties. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated terri- tory.

Martial law is an extreme and rare measure used to control society during war or periods of civil unrest or chaos. According to the Supreme Court, the term martial law carries no precise meaning (Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 66 S. Ct. 606, 90 L. Ed. 688 [1946]). However, most declarations of martial law share some common features. Generally, the institution of martial law contemplates some use of military force. To a varying extent, depending on the martial law order, government military personnel have the authority to make and enforce civil and criminal laws. Certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. And the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended (this writ allows persons who are unlawfully imprisoned to gain freedom through a court proceeding).

In the United States, martial law has been instituted on the national level only once, during the Civil War, and on a regional level only once, during World War II. Otherwise, it has been limited to the states. Uprisings, political protests, labor strikes, and riots have, at various times, caused several state governors to declare some measure of martial law.

Martial law on the national level may be declared by Congress or the president. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power "[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress. On the state level, a governor may declare martial law within her or his own state. The power to do so usually is granted in the state constitution.

Congress has never declared martial law. However, in July 1861, Congress ratified most of the martial law measures declared by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Its martial law declaration gave the Union military forces the authority to arrest persons and conduct trials. However, Congress initially refused to ratify Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. This created friction between Congress and the president, and raised the question of whether unilateral suspension of the writ under martial law was within the president's power. The Supreme Court reviewed the issue and ruled in Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861) (No. 487), that only Congress had the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. After Congress approved Lincoln's suspension of the writ in 1863, Union forces were authorized to arrest and detain Confederate soldiers and sympathizers, but only until they could be tried by a court of law.

The martial law declared by Lincoln during the Civil War spawned another legal challenge, this one to the military courts: Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 18 L. Ed. 281 (1866). Lamdin Milligan, a civilian resident of Indiana, was arrested on October 5, 1864, by the Union military forces. Milligan was charged with five offenses: conspiring against the United States, affording aid and comfort to rebels, inciting insurrection, engaging in disloyal practices, and violating the laws of war. Milligan was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to prison by a military court.

Although the habeas corpus petition had been suspended, the Supreme Court accepted Milligan's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court held that neither the president nor Congress could give federal military forces the power to try a civilian who lived in a state that had federal courts. Milligan firmly established the right of the U.S. Supreme Court to review the propriety of martial law declarations.

The next large-scale martial law declaration took place eighty years later. On December 7, 1941, the day that Japanese warplanes bombed Pearl Harbor in what was then the territory of Hawaii, Governor Joseph B. Poindexter, of Hawaii, declared martial law on the Hawaiian Islands. The governor also suspended the writ of habeas corpus. The commanding general of the Hawaiian military assumed the position of military governor. All courts were closed by order of the military governor, and the military was authorized to arrest, try, and convict persons. Under Poindexter's martial law order, approved by the president, the military courts were given the power to decide cases without following the rules of evidence of the courts of law, and were not limited by sentencing laws in determining penalties.

In February 1942 the Department of War appointed General John L. De Witt to carry out martial law in California, Oregon, Washington, and the southern part of Arizona. In March 1942 De Witt announced that the entire Pacific Coast of the United States would be subject to additional martial law measures. Later that month he declared that all alien Japanese, Germans, and Italians, and all persons of Japanese descent, on the Pacific Coast were to remain inside their home between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.

These martial law measures were challenged by criminal defendants shortly after they were put in force. In Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 66 S. Ct. 606, 90 L. Ed. 688 (1946), the Supreme Court held that the military tribunals established under martial law in Hawaii did not have jurisdiction over common criminal cases, because the Hawaiian Organic Act (31 Stat. 141 [48 U.S.C.A. § 532]) did not authorize the governor to close the courts of law when they were capable of functioning. In Duncan the Court ordered the release of two prisoners who had been tried and convicted of embezzlement and assault by military courts.

In other cases the High Court was more tolerant of civil rights deprivations under martial law. In Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S. Ct. 1375, 87 L. Ed. 1774 (1943), the Court upheld a curfew placed on Japanese Americans during the war, on the ground of military necessity, and in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193, 89 L. Ed. 194 (1944), the Court justified the random internment (imprisonment) of over 110,000 Japanese Americans during the war.

At least one governor has used martial law to enforce state agency regulations. In 1931 Governor Ross S. Sterling, of Texas, sent Texas National Guard troops into east Texas oil fields to force compliance with limits on the production of oil and an increase in the minimum number of acres required between oil wells. The regulations had been drawn up by the Texas Railroad Commission with the approval of the Texas Legislature, but similar regulations had been enjoined (stopped) by a federal court just four months earlier. In 1932 the Supreme Court invalidated Sterling's use of martial law, holding that it violated the constitutional due process rights of the property owners (Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 53 S. Ct. 190, 77 L. Ed. 375 [1932]).

Another governor declared martial law in response to an assassination and rumors of political corruption. In June 1954 Albert Patterson, a nominee for state attorney general in Alabama, was shot to death on a street in Phenix City. Governor Gordon Persons, of Alabama, declared martial law in Phenix City, and dispatched General Walter J. ("Crack") Hanna and the Alabama National Guard to take over the city. Hanna appointed a military mayor, and the troops took control of the county courthouse and city hall. The troops physically removed certain officials from the courthouse and city hall, seized gambling equipment, and revoked liquor licenses.

Martial law usually is used to try to restore and maintain peace during civil unrest. It does not always yield the desired results. In May 1970, for example, Governor James Rhodes, of Ohio, declared limited martial law by sending in National Guard troops to contain a protest of the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Four protestors were shot and killed by the troops. In a case brought by their survivors, the Supreme Court held that the governor and other state officials could be sued if they acted beyond the scope of state laws and the federal Constitution (Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 [1974]).

Martial law is generally a last resort. Courts will uphold a decision to use troops only if it was necessary and proper.

See: Japanese American Evacuation Cases; Korematsu v. United States; Military Law; Military Occupation; Militia; Milligan, Ex Parte; National Guard.

Warfare Military history
Eras Prehistoric Ancient Medieval Gunpowder Industrial Modern Battlespace Air Information Land Sea Space Weapons Armor Artillery Biological Cavalry Chemical Electronic Infantry Nuclear Psychological Tactics Attrition warfare Guerrilla warfare Maneuver warfare Siege Total war Trench warfare Conventional warfare Unconventional warfare Asymmetric warfare Counter-insurgency Network-centric warfare Strategy Economic Grand Operational Organization Ranks Command and control Staff Intelligence Education and training Logistics Technology and equipment Materiel Supply chain management Lists Battles Commanders Operations Sieges Writers Wars War crimes Weapons
Portal   v • d • e

For other uses, see Martial law (disambiguation).

Martial law – is a system of rules that take effect if the military takes control of the normal administration of justice.

It is sometimes imposed in response to civic emergencies or episodes of unrest or riots, or during wars or in cases of occupations in the absence of any other civil government. Examples of this form of military rule include Germany and Japan after World War II or the American South during the early stages of Reconstruction. In addition, it is used by governments to enforce their rule – for example, after a coup d'état (Thailand 2006); when threatened by popular protests (Tiananmen Square protests of 1989); or to suppress the opposition (Poland in 1981). Another example would be The October Crisis which took place in Canada in October 1970. Martial law can be declared in cases of major natural disasters also; however most countries use a different legal construct, such as a "state of emergency".

In many countries, martial law imposes particular rules, one of which is curfew. Often, under this system, the administration of justice is left to a military tribunal, called a court-martial. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is likely to occur.

Contents 1 Martial law across the world 1.1 Canada 1.2 Egypt 1.3 Ireland 1.4 Israel 1.5 Pakistan 1.6 Philippines 1.7 Poland 1.8 Switzerland 1.9 Taiwan 1.10 Thailand 1.11 Turkey 1.12 FR Yugoslavia 1.13 United States of America 1.13.1 Ex parte Milligan 1.13.2 New Orleans, Louisiana in the War of 1812 1.13.3 The American Revolution 1.13.4 The Territory of Hawaii 1.13.5 Hurricane Katrina 1.13.6 Schenectady, New York 2 See also 3 Additional reading 4 References 5 External links

Martial law across the world

Canada

See also: War Measures Act

The War Measures Act was a Canadian statute that allowed the government to assume sweeping emergency powers, stopping short of martial law, i.e. the military does not administer justice, which remains in the hands of the courts. The Act has been invoked three times: During World War I, World War II, and the October Crisis of 1970. In 1988, the War Measures Act was replaced by the Emergencies Act.

Prior to 1867, martial law was proclaimed and applied in the territory of the Province of Quebec during the invasion of Canada by the army of the American Continental Congress in 1775-1776. It was also applied twice in the territory of Lower Canada during the 1837-1838 insurrections.

On December 5, following the events of November 1837, martial law was proclaimed in the district of Montréal by Governor Gosford, without the support of the Legislative Assembly in the Parliament of Lower Canada. It was imposed until April 27, 1838.

It was proclaimed a second time on November 4, 1838, this time by acting Governor John Colborne, and was applied in the district of Montreal until August 24, 1839.^[1]

Egypt

In Egypt, a State of Emergency has been in effect almost continuously since 1967. Following the assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat in 1981, martial law was declared. Egypt has been under martial law ever since; the Parliament has renewed the emergency laws every three years since they were imposed. The legislation was last extended in 2003 and was due to expire at the end of May 2006; plans were in place to replace it with new anti-terrorism laws, but after the Dahab bombings in April of that year, martial law was renewed for another two years. ^[2][3] In May 2008 there was a further extension to June 2010.^[4]

Martial law gives military courts the power to try civilians and allows the government to detain for renewable 45-day periods and without court orders anyone deemed to be threatening state security.

Public demonstrations are banned under the legislation.

Ireland

During the Easter Rising in 1916, Lord Wimborne, cousin of Winston Churchill and then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, declared martial law to maintain order in the streets of Dublin. This was later extended both in duration and geographical reach to the whole of the country with the consent of the British government. Much of Ireland was declared under martial law by the British authorities during the Irish War of Independence. A large portion of Ireland was also under de facto martial law during the Irish Civil War.

Israel

Military administrative government was in effect from 1949 to 1966 over some geographical areas of Israel having large Arab populations, primarily the Negev, Galilee, and the Triangle. The residents of these areas were subject to a number of controlling measures that amounted to martial law.^[5][6] Permits from the military governor had to be procurred to travel more than a given distance from a person's registered place of residence, and curfew, administrative detentions, and expulsions were common.^[5] Although the military administration was officially for geographical areas, and not people, its restrictions were seldom enforced on the Jewish residents of these areas. In the 1950s, martial law ceased to be in effect for those Arab citizens living in predominantly-Jewish cities, but remained in place in all Arab localities within Israel until 1966.^[5]

During the 2006 Lebanon war, martial law was declared by Defense Minister Amir Peretz over the North of the country. The Israel Defense Forces were granted the authority to issue instructions to civilians, and to close down offices, schools, camps and factories in cities considered under threat of attack, as well as to impose curfews on cities in the North. ^[7]

Instructions of the Home Front Command are obligatory under martial law, rather than merely recommended. ^[7] The order signed by Peretz was in effect for 48 hours ^[7]and was extended by the Cabinet and the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee over the war's duration.^{[citation needed]}

Pakistan

Martial law has been declared in Pakistan three times. In the first instance President Iskander Mirza abrogated the Constitution in 1958 and declared Martial Law over the country. The second instance was when General Yahya Khan declared martial law in March, 1969 after Mirza's successor, General Ayub Khan handed over power to him. the 3rd by Gen Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq.

After several tumultuous years, which witnessed the secession of East Pakistan, politician Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took over in 1971 as the first civilian martial law administrator in recent history, imposing selective martial law in areas hostile to his rule, such as the country's largest province, Balochistan. Following widespread civil disorder, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq overthrew Bhutto and imposed martial law in its totality on July 5, 1977 in a bloodless coup d'etat. Unstable areas were brought under control through indirect military action, such as Balochistan under Martial Law Governor, General Rahimuddin Khan. Civilian government resumed in 1988 following General Zia's death in an aircraft crash.

On October 12, 1999, the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was dissolved, and the Army took control once more. But no Martial Law was imposed. General Pervez Musharraf took the title of Chief Executive until the President Rafiq Tarar resigned and General Musharraf became President. Elections were held in October 2002 and Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali became Prime Minister. Jamali premiership was followed by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Shaukat Aziz. While the government was supposed to be run by the elected Prime Minister, there was a common understanding that important decisions were made by the President General Parvez Musharraf.

On November 3, 2007, President General Pervez Musharraf declared the state of emergency in the country which is claimed to be equivalent to the state of Martial Law as the constitution of Pakistan of 1973, was suspended, and the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court were fired.

On November 12, 2007, President General Pervez Musharraf issued some amendments in the Military Act, which gave the Armed forces some additional powers.

Philippines

President Jose P. Laurel of the wartime Second Republic (puppet-government under Japan) placed the Philippines under martial law in 1944 through Proclamation No. 29, dated September 21. Martial law came into effect on September 22, 1944 at 9am. Proclamation No. 30 was issued the next day, declaring the existence of a state of war between the Philippines and the United States and the United Kingdom. This took effect on September 23, 1944 at 10:00 am.

The country was under martial law again from 1972 to 1981 under the authoritarian rule of Ferdinand Marcos. Proclamation No. 1081 (Proclaiming a State of Martial Law in the Philippines) was signed on September 21, 1972 and came into force on September 22 - exactly 28 years after similar proclamations by President Jose P. Laurel. Martial law was declared to suppress increasing civil strife and the threat of communist takeover following a series of bombings and a government-staged assassination attempt on then Defence Minister Juan Ponce Enrile in Manila. The declaration of martial law was initially well-received by some sectors, but it eventually proved unpopular as excesses and human rights abuses by the military emerged, such as the use of torture as a method of extracting information. The well-known People Power Revolution of 1986 took place because of the many violated rights and abuse of authority of Marcos. The People Power Revolution eventually ousted Marcos, and he fled to Hawaii where he died in exile in 1989.

There were rumours that incumbent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was planning to impose martial law to put an end to military coup plots, general civilian dissatisfaction, and criticism of the legitimacy of her presidency due to dubious election results. Instead, a "State of National Emergency" was imposed to crush a coup plot and to tackle protesters which lasted from February 24, 2006 until March 3 of the same year.

Poland

Main article: Martial law in Poland

Martial law was introduced in Communist Poland on December 13, 1981 by Generals Czesław Kiszczak and Wojciech Jaruzelski to prevent democratic opposition from gaining popularity and political power in the country. Thousands of people linked to democratic opposition, including Lech Wałęsa, were arbitrarily arrested and detained. About 100 deaths are attributed to the martial law, including 9 miners shot by the police during the pacification of striking Wujek Coal Mine. The martial law was lifted July 22, 1983. Polish society is divided in opinion on the necessity of introduction of the martial law, which is viewed as a lesser evil compared to alleged Soviet military intervention. Generals' legal trials are still in progress after 25 years from the events.

Switzerland

There are no provisions for martial law as such in Switzerland. Under the Army Law of 1995 [4], the Army can be called upon by cantonal (state) authorities for assistance (Assistenzdienst). This regularly happens in the case of natural disasters or special protection requirements (e.g., for the World Economic Forum in Davos). This assistance generally requires parliamentary authorization, though, and takes place in the regular legal framework and under the civilian leadership of the cantonal authorities. On the other hand, the federal authorities are authorized to use the Army to enforce law and order when the Cantons no longer can or want to do so (Ordnungsdienst). This power largely fell into disuse after World War II. See [5].

Taiwan

See also: White Terror (Taiwan)

After the Republic of China gained control of Taiwan following World War II, the distinction of having the longest period of martial law in modern history was imposed on Taiwan. In the aftermath of the 2-28 Incident of 1947, martial law was declared in 1948. After the Kuomintang-led Republic of China government lost control of its possessions in mainland Asia to the Communist Party of China and retreated to Taiwan in 1949, the perceived need to suppress Communist activities in Taiwan meant that the martial law was not lifted until 1987.

Thailand

In Thailand many coups have taken place since the 1930s, but many have failed. In January 2004, the former Prime Minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, declared a state of martial law in the provinces of Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat in response to the growing South Thailand insurgency. On September 19, 2006, Thailand's Army declared martial law following a bloodless military coup in the Thai capital of Bangkok, declared while The Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was in New York to address the United Nations General Assembly. General Sonthi Boonyaratglin took the control of the Government, and soon after handed the premiership to Ex-Army Chief General Surayud. Sonthi himself is Chief of the Administrative Reform Council.

Turkey

Main article: Martial law and state of emergency in Turkey

Since the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 the military conducted three coup d'étas and announced martial law. Martial law between 1978 and 1983 was replaced by a State of emergency that lasted until November 2002.

FR Yugoslavia

During the Yugoslav Wars in 1991, it was declared "State of Direct War Threat". Although forces from whole SFRY were included in this conflict, martial law was never announced, but after secession, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina declared Martial law. In March 23, 1999, "State of Direct War Threat" was declared in Yugoslavia, following possibility of NATO air-strikes. Day after, when strikes had begun, Martial law has been declared, and it had duration until June 15, that year, although strikes ended on June 10, following Kumanovo agreement.

United States of America

See also: Suspension clause

The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. On October 1, 2002 United States Northern Command was established to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities.^[8].

On June 15, 1995, Norman Olson, along with militia leaders from other states, testified before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism. Olson's opening statement included the following:

One other important point needs to be made. Since The Constitution is the limiting document upon the government, the government cannot become greater than the granting power. That is, the servant cannot become greater than its master. Therefore, should the chief executive or the other branch of government or all branches together act to suspend The Constitution under a rule of martial law, all power granted to government would be cancelled and differed back to the granting power. That is the people. And I'll conclude with this statement: Martial law shall NOT be possible in this country as long as the people recognize the bill of rights as inalienable.

Ex parte Milligan

On September 15, 1863, President Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.

The National Guard is an exception, since unless federalized, they are under the control of state governors.^[9] This was changed briefly: Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122), was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and allowed the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. Title V, Subtitle B, Part II, Section 525(a) of the JWDAA of 2007 reads "The [military] Secretary [of the Army, Navy or Air Force] concerned may order a member of a reserve component under the Secretary's jurisdiction to active duty...The training or duty ordered to be performed...may include...support of operations or missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense." ^[10] The President signed the Defense Authorization Act of 2008 on January 13, 2008. However, Section 1068 in the enacted 2008 defense authorization bill (H.R. 4986: "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008") repealed this section of PL 109-364.^[11]

New Orleans, Louisiana in the War of 1812

During the War of 1812, U.S. General Andrew Jackson imposed martial law in New Orleans, Louisiana after capturing the encampment of New Orleans from the British in the Battle of New Orleans.

The American Revolution

As a result of the Boston Tea Party, King George III of Britain, ordered martial law in Boston to keep riots and protest down.

The Territory of Hawaii

During World War II (1939 to 1945) what is now the State of Hawaii was held under martial law from December 7, 1941 to October 24, 1944.

Hurricane Katrina

Contrary to many media reports at the time, martial law was not declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law. However, a State of Emergency was declared, which does give unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law. On the evening of August 31, 2005, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin nominally declared "martial law" and said that officers didn't have to observe civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters.^[12] Federal troops were a common sight in New Orleans after Katrina. At one point, as many as 15,000 federal troops and National Guardsmen patrolled the city. Additionally it has been reported that armed contractors from Blackwater USA assisted in policing the city.^[13]

See also "What Is Martial Law? And is New Orleans under it?" by the Slate Explainer.

Schenectady, New York

The city of Schenectady, New York, is – as of March 24, 2009 – considering disbanding its police force and declaring martial law until it can form a new police force. Mayor Brian Stratton is considering this move because the city's police department has been filled with corruption and slammed with allegations about its officers, ranging from drunk driving to battery. The mayor himself does not, however, have the power to declare martial law; this can be done only by Governor David Paterson. "It's a contrived scenario, but it's not beyond the realm of possibilities," the mayor said. ^[14]

See also

• Authoritarianism
• Military law (law to which members of the military are subject)
• Military rule
• State of emergency
• Martial law in Poland
• Chief Martial Law Administrator
• DEFCON

Additional reading

• Macomb, Alexander, Major General of the United States Army, The Practice of Courts Martial, (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1841) 154 pages.
• Macomb, Alexander, Major General of the United States Army, A Treatise on Martial Law, and Courts-Martial as Practiced in the United States. (Charleston: J. Hoff, 1809), republished (New York: Lawbook Exchange, June 2007), ISBN 1584777095, ISBN 978-1584777090, 340 pages.^[15]
• Rehnquist, William H. (1998). All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime. New York: William Morrow & Co. ISBN 0-688-05142-1. 

References

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007)

1. ^ Françoise Dubuc. "La Loi martiale telle qu'imposée au Québec en 1837 et en 1838", in Les Patriotes de 1837@1838, May 20, 2000, retrieved May 10, 2009
2. ^ Simon Apiku. Egypt to lift 25-year-old emergency laws. Middle East On-line, 23 March 2006.[1]
3. ^ Joelle Bassoul. Egypt renews state of emergency for two years. Middle East On-line, 1 May 2005. [2]
4. ^ Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani. EGYPT: Despair Over Two More Years of Martial Law.Inter Press Service News Agency. [3]
5. ^ ^{a b c} Valerie Féron (2001). Palestine(s): Les déchirures. Paris, Editions du Felin. ISBN 2866453913. 
6. ^ Bassma Kodmani-Darwish (1997). La Diaspora Palestinienne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. ISBN 2130484867. 
7. ^ ^{a b c} Yaakov Katz and Amir Mizroch (15 July 2006). "Martial Law Declared in the North". http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886008109&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. 
8. ^ United States Northern Command website
9. ^ Martial Law at US Constitution online
10. ^ Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy, National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007
11. ^ Defense Authorization Act of 2008
12. ^ Martial law was also not declared in the State of Mississippi, although after briefly passing through Buruas, LA Hurricane Katrina actually made landfall in Mississippi resulting in near total destruction from state line to state line and a death toll in the hundreds. Federal troops as well as numerous other law enforcement agencies around the country were brought in to help but Martial Law was never declared. Edward, Irwin; AP contributions (2005-08-31). "Nagin declares Martial Law to crack down on looters". WWLTV. http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL083105lawless.1242410b.html. Retrieved 2007-05-24. 
13. ^ Blackwater: Shadow Army by Jeremy Scahill
14. ^ from Capital News 9
15. ^ Macomb on Martial Law and Courts Martial.

External links

• Martial law in Thailand in 2005
• Full text of the 1972 Martial Law in the Philippines
• NSPD-51
• Emergency Rule of 3rd Nov. 2007 Pakistan

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)