This year, Ukrainian authorities have stepped up efforts to establish a functional system of military justice. In September, lawmakers approved a law on the military ombudsman, and the judicial branch is discussing the creation of military courts – intended not only to safeguard the rights of servicemen but also to handle offenses, including those in combat zones.
Why has this conversation become urgent in the 11th year of war? Could it lead to meaningful judicial reform? And is there political will in the President’s Office to see it through?
Military courts: a decade in the making
Military courts in Ukraine are not a new idea.
In 2010, military courts were abolished under the law “On the Judicial System and Status of Judges” and a decree by then-President Viktor Yanukovych. The decree ended operations of two military appellate courts – the Central Garrison and the Naval Forces Garrison – and 13 local military courts. Just three and a half years later, Russia’s war in eastern Ukraine began.
By 2015, bills to restore military courts were submitted to parliament by then-defense committee leaders Serhiy Pashynsky and Ivan Vinnik. However, the VIII convocation of the Rada ultimately withdrew all proposals, including later attempts in 2018.
More serious efforts emerged after the full-scale invasion. In 2023 and 2024, deputies introduced bills on the military police (No. 6569-d), military specialization for judges (No. 10301), and the State Bureau of Military Justice (No. 6570).
Iryna Mudra, deputy head of the President’s Office, told Kyiv Post that while the concept has been discussed since 2014, restoring military courts has been difficult because it’s a sensitive topic, adding however: “The emergence of a legislative initiative to restore military justice in 2025 means that the issue has already been clearly defined and there is a demand for it to be resolved.”
The most debated bill on military courts
In March 2025, MPs Serhiy Vlasenko and Maksym Dyrdin introduced bills to establish military courts. Dyrdin’s alternative proposal, No. 13048-1, is widely regarded as the more balanced option.
Both propose a three-tier system: local, appellate, and a military cassation chamber in the Supreme Court. Key points include:
- Local courts staffed by officers approved to serve as judges.
- Appellate courts staffed by active military personnel.
- Supreme Court’s military chamber staffed by reservists or retired officers.
- Citizens unfit for military service cannot serve in local military courts.
Dyrdin noted broad support from judges, academics, and the military.
“The only question is about the military uniform and ‘rank’ of judges. It’s about whether judges with military ranks can be independent from the military command. But this discussion is ongoing.”
The President’s Office and European standards
Viktor Dubovyk, head of the Legal Policy Directorate of the President’s Office, emphasized that military courts must align with European standards, particularly the Venice Commission, but that there are somewhat ambiguous guidelines on that front.
“There can be no obstacles or additional inconsistencies on this difficult path to EU accession,” he emphasized.
Mudra said military courts are a responsible step.
“It will ensure that military courts function as specialized courts not only during a full-scale war with the Russian Federation, but also in the post-war, peacetime.”
Olga Reshetilova, the President’s Commissioner for the Protection of the Rights of Servicemen and Members of Their Families, agrees with her, telling Kyiv Post:
“There is undoubtedly a need for this, but it should be understood that it will take years to create and establish military justice, as it is a very complex issue – from the legislative framework to budgetary resources.”
Why the issue is urgent
The urgency stems from the volume of military cases. Ukraine’s one-million-strong army and now numerous military lawyers generate 200,000-250,000 cases of unauthorized absence from units alone.
Supreme Court Chairman Stanislav Kravchenko warned that regular courts handle no more than 160,000 cases annually, meaning a surge of military cases could overwhelm the system.
“Before the full-scale war, I was against the creation of military courts. I believed that we could cope as a system,” Kravchenko told Kyiv Post. “But since February 2022, the size of the army has increased significantly, and the number of criminal offenses against military service has grown accordingly.”
Staffing shortages worsen the problem: of nearly 8,000 judicial positions, 3,400 remain vacant, and frontline courts are operating at two to five times normal capacity.
According to a report by the Pravo Justice project in conjunction with the High Council of Justice, local courts in frontline regions are handling the workload of two to three judges, and in extreme cases, one judge may cover five.
How military courts could help
Military courts could streamline investigations in combat zones, where pre-trial procedures are often impractical. Deputy Prosecutor General Andriy Leshchenko emphasized that an effective military justice system requires military police, prosecutors, investigative units, courts, and legal defense.
A Kyiv Post source highlighted the difficulties of investigating directly in combat zones:
“For example, when a pre-trial investigation is conducted, it takes place directly at the scene of the crime. But the pre-trial investigation authorities simply do not go to these crime scenes. What if it is necessary to inspect the scene or reconstruct the circumstances of the crime? This is part of the pre-trial investigation. And so the military says: they come to the investigator and show him how everything happened on a table somewhere. This is a profanation of the pre-trial investigation.”
The source emphasized that military judges would perform their duties directly in combat zones.
Leshchenko noted that the absence of military justice since 2014 complicates investigations of both military offenses and war crimes by Russian forces.
“The creation of a military justice system should include not only the military police with operational and investigative functions, but also investigative units, military prosecutors, military courts, and the bar,” he said.
“A comprehensive solution is needed that would allow not only for the investigation of war crimes, but also for their prevention,” he added.
Supreme Court weighs in on military courts
The discussion is active not only in parliament but also within the Supreme Court. Kravchenko said the initiative reflects military demand:
“In May 2022, I participated in a meeting at the Academy of Legal Sciences, where representatives of the Ministry of Defense were present. And when I heard that we needed this, I immediately said that I would definitely support it. If the military requests it, then it must be implemented. Right now, the official position of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff is that military courts should exist,” he said.
He noted current judge selection procedures could delay implementation until 2028, but supports competitive procedures lasting no more than a year:
“Unfortunately, there is no significant optimism regarding the dynamics of resolving this issue. But if the vote (on the bill – ed.) takes place this year, that would be very good... But we can change the selection rules to make the process shorter and clearer.”
Oleg Tkachuk, retired military judge and Supreme Court advisor, told Kyiv Post that common objections – funding, premises, and personnel – are manageable.
“To dispel doubts, we are holding expert discussions and consultations... The head of the SJA [State Judicial Administration], Maksym Pampura, says that there are opportunities for establishing military courts,” Tkachuk said.
Ukraine doesn’t need to rebuild an entire military court system from scratch, Tkachuk said, but a few trial-level courts could cover the country, and a small group of experienced judges at the Supreme Court could oversee military cases at the top level.
Kravchenko emphasized alignment with constitutional territorial principles:
“They obviously need to be large enough, but within reason, taking logistics into account. And from there, we can see whether they will be located according to the types of troops or scattered across different areas – this is one of the issues that parliamentarians have to decide.”
On Sept. 29, the Supreme Court Plenum decided to issue recommendations on the draft laws, Tkachuk said:
“We will prepare a draft conclusion based on the results of the discussion at the meeting of the Scientific Advisory Council at the Supreme Court, agree on this decision, and recommend that the Plenum take it into account.”
The army needs justice: models
Experts are divided on the approach. One camp supports fully separate military courts staffed by judges with military ranks, while another prefers civilian judges with military specialization.
Oleksiy Omelian, a member of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ), which is responsible for selecting and qualifying judges, noted that judges could be assigned based on military service or prior experience.
“According to the mechanism that is already being implemented and has been considered by parliament, specialization is the closer option,” he said. “But in principle, according to experts, this will not solve the problem, since the easiest way is not always the most effective. What is the problem? Specialization requires that the local court of first instance have a sufficient number of judges to hear these cases.”
Oleksiy Muravyov, head of the Main Directorate of Military Justice, said specialization alone is insufficient due to there not being enough judges.
“Specialization requires that the local court of first instance have a sufficient number of judges to hear these cases.” he said. “Therefore, it would be logical to create courts.”
However, Mudra said specialized civilian judges may be closer to the Ukrainian reality:
“It may be relatively easy to introduce the relevant specialization in the courts. In addition, this option requires less time and financial and material costs for its implementation.”
Reshetilova indicated that a military ombudsmen should be embedded in the military justice system to be effective.
“It will be difficult for the military ombudsman to function outside the military justice system... Currently, the same person can hear entirely civilian cases in the morning and deal with cases related to military service in the evening. The system will also definitely need to launch a military police force.”
Marina Stavniychuk, a former Venice Commission member, stressed that Ukraine should create a new model rather than restore the old system:
“We should not be talking about restoring the old system, but about creating our own model of military courts... according to the standards of general jurisdiction.”
She noted European variations: Poland, Greece, and Italy have full military court systems; France and the UK maintain limited jurisdiction courts; in the Baltics and Nordic countries, general courts handle military cases, with Germany and Norway reinstating military tribunals only in wartime.