0
Civilian government is generally considered better than military government because it promotes democratic principles, such as accountability, human rights, and the rule of law. Civilian leaders are typically elected by the populace, ensuring that governance reflects the will of the people, whereas military governments often rely on force and coercion. Additionally, civilian governments tend to foster political stability and economic development by encouraging civic engagement and participation in decision-making processes. This can lead to more sustainable and inclusive growth compared to the often authoritarian and repressive nature of military rule.
What else can I help you with?
How many people from each country died in World War 2?
Germany military - 3,250,000 civilian - 2,350,000 Italy military - 226,900 civilian - 60,000 Japan military - 1,740,000 civilian - 393,400 US military 405,000 civilian - 68 (Pearl Harbor) France military 122,000 civilian - 470,000 England military - 305,800 civilian - 6,700,000 Russia military - 11,000,000 civilian - 6,700,000 China military - 1,400,000 civilian - 8,000,000 Poland- from 5.5m to 6.5m all together (not caunting many soldiers who fleed the country and joined army in other countries)
When does civilian law supersede military law?
Civilian law is typically always in place. Military law is only invoked in extreme emergencies. However, military personnel are always subject to military law. The Adjutant General will negotiate with the civilian authorities if there is any situation where it is not definite as to which takes precedence. Actually, in the United States, no military person (or, for that matter, anyone other than the Judical Branch) can arbitrarily decide to enforce military law in a place where it is not currently in place. Not even the President can decide to apply military law in a place where civil law is currently in force (indeed, this is one of the major contentious issues around the classification of terrorists as "enemy combatants", and the legality of this move is still being subject to litigation). The misnowmer "martial law" does not actually apply Military Law, but rather enforce a certain subsection of civilian law. For instance, let's say that there is major rioting in a city, and the National Guard is called in to restore order, and "martial law" is declared by the city's major (or perhaps, the state governor). Members of the National Guard are subject to Military law, and any infractions they commit will naturally be covered by military trial. HOWEVER, should a National Guardsman capture a looter (or other criminal), they are then prosecuted under CIVILIAN LAW, even though "martial law" was declared. Martial law in this case is a specific subsection of civilian law, which criminalizes certain activities which are normally permissible under ordinary civilian law. Back to the original question: as Congress is the creator of both military and civilian law, it can decide whether civilian or military law applies in a situation where the military normally has first jurisdiction. There are a myriad number of places this can occur, so naming them all is not possible. In addition, the Constitution is still the highest law of the land, and is supreme over both military and civilian law. Do note that many crimes are not covered by military law, but only civilian law, so it is entirely possible for a person normally subject to military jurisdiction to be prosecuted by civilian authorities without military acquiecence. For example, Insider Trading is a civilian crime, with no military equivalent, so it would be entirely possible to charge a military serviceperson on a military base with this civilian crime.
Civilian rule is better than Military rule?
Well, honey, let me break it down for you. Civilian rule is like having a fancy dinner party with etiquette and democracy, while military rule is like a frat party with tanks and uniforms. So yeah, civilian rule is definitely the way to go if you want a society that values freedom and human rights over marching orders and curfews.
Why was World War 2 the deadlist war?
world war 2 was the deadliest war because there was more destruction,civilian casualties,and military casualties than any war.
Reasons why is military better than civilian rule in Nigeria?
That's a very debateable point. Military governments traditionally are extremely restrictive in allowing personal freedoms of their citizens, and often result in a failed state forming due to mass insurrection against the military government forming. The advantage of it, at least from the standpoint of the country's leaders, is that it's a direct dictatorship, where the directives of the government can be carried out without being tied up by the political process. Whether it's actually advantageous for the citizens of Nigeria, is questionable at best.another advantage is public opinion which i think is a good issue to look at.
Points on Military government is more suitable for Nigeria than Sivilian government?
Points on Military government is better than Civilian government
Are military rules better than civilian rules?
there are more rules in military than civilian
Is civilian government better than military government?
Yes! Civillian rule is much better cus it is the power of the people while millitary rule is done through coercion.....
What is civilian regime?
A civilian regime refers to a government that is predominantly made up of civilian leaders who are not part of the military. In a civilian regime, power is usually vested in elected officials and civilian institutions, rather than military authorities.
What does civilian of the military mean?
Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in militaryand political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers.
What does civilian control of the military mean?
Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in militaryand political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers.
What clothing did the roman soldiers wear?
For ordinary clothing the Roman soldier wore his military tunic (a tunic that was shorter than the standard civilian tunic) his soldiers' belt and his military boots. He also had a military cloak or "sagum".For ordinary clothing the Roman soldier wore his military tunic (a tunic that was shorter than the standard civilian tunic) his soldiers' belt and his military boots. He also had a military cloak or "sagum".For ordinary clothing the Roman soldier wore his military tunic (a tunic that was shorter than the standard civilian tunic) his soldiers' belt and his military boots. He also had a military cloak or "sagum".For ordinary clothing the Roman soldier wore his military tunic (a tunic that was shorter than the standard civilian tunic) his soldiers' belt and his military boots. He also had a military cloak or "sagum".For ordinary clothing the Roman soldier wore his military tunic (a tunic that was shorter than the standard civilian tunic) his soldiers' belt and his military boots. He also had a military cloak or "sagum".For ordinary clothing the Roman soldier wore his military tunic (a tunic that was shorter than the standard civilian tunic) his soldiers' belt and his military boots. He also had a military cloak or "sagum".For ordinary clothing the Roman soldier wore his military tunic (a tunic that was shorter than the standard civilian tunic) his soldiers' belt and his military boots. He also had a military cloak or "sagum".For ordinary clothing the Roman soldier wore his military tunic (a tunic that was shorter than the standard civilian tunic) his soldiers' belt and his military boots. He also had a military cloak or "sagum".For ordinary clothing the Roman soldier wore his military tunic (a tunic that was shorter than the standard civilian tunic) his soldiers' belt and his military boots. He also had a military cloak or "sagum".
Is military rule better than civilian rule?
Well actually to be a good community you need both because think of segregation. If it were civilian rule black people would still be in separate schools and public places than white people. Military rule is bad sometimes because it may turn into a Dictatorship
Advantage of civilian regime?
It is more civilized and humane. NOBAMA
Can military doctors be sued?
Yes, military doctors can be sued, but the process is different than suing civilian doctors. The doctrine of "Feres v. United States" prohibits active-duty military personnel from bringing medical malpractice claims against the federal government. However, there are some exceptions to this rule, such as cases involving civilian employees of the military or medical treatment provided to dependents of military personnel.
Can a non-military organization imprision the members of the three divisions of government and replace them with non corrupt politicians?
If we're speaking of the United States, the answer is yes.In fact, they must be imprisoned by a non-military court. Any military court that attempted to exact justice on a civilian in the United States would be in violation of the Constitution and it would be tantamount to a coup or revolution.The military in the United States is not at liberty to do anything more than detain a civilian, which they are then required to turn over to a civilian court.Any action that came against a member of the US government would have to come from a non-military organization in order to be deemed even remotely legal.
Civil rule preferable to military rule?
civilian rule is better than military rule because there is freedom and peace in the nation better than when the military was ruling us
