美國軍法體系中指揮官之角色

The Role of the Commander in the U.S. Military Justice System

要理解美國軍事審判制度，必須從指揮官的權限與角色談起。美國軍法自設計之初，即以維持軍紀與戰鬥力為核心，而非單純追求司法正義。指揮官不僅是軍法的執行者，更是軍隊紀律的維繫者。指揮官在案件發生後，負責調查、諮詢法務軍官意見，並擁有極大的處置裁量權，從不處分、口頭訓誡、行政汰除，到啟動「非司法懲罰」或軍事審判，皆由指揮官決定。這種制度設計使指揮官兼具領導與準司法職能，維持部隊士氣與紀律的平衡。然而，為防止濫權，制度設有多重制衡。最重要者為美國「統一軍事法典」第37條禁止「非法指揮影響」（unlawfulcommandinfluence），明定指揮官不得干預審判結果、壓制證人或影響裁判成員。法院實務又將之區分為「實際影響」與「顯然影響」，前者指確實影響個案公正，後者則損害軍事司法的整體正當性。若被告能初步舉證存在此情形，舉證責任即轉由檢方負擔，須排除合理懷疑以證明程序無瑕。歷來案例如指揮官公開譴責被告或施壓證人不作證者，皆被認定構成非法指揮影響。對於指揮官權力的爭議，社會輿論與國會均多次提出改革呼聲。主張者認為，起訴權應由軍事檢察官或外部司法機關行使，以避免包庇部屬、輕忽性犯罪等情形。2023年，美國國會通過修法，設立「特別訴訟律師辦公室」（OSTC），明定性侵、家庭暴力、殺人等重大案件應由獨立檢察官起訴，並排除指揮官干預。總結而言，美軍軍法制度與指揮體系密不可分，長期以維持紀律與作戰力為導向。指揮官在制度中握有強大權限，但亦受非法指揮影響的規範與上訴審制衡。隨著社會對公正與人權的重視，制度正朝向權限分離與專業化邁進。美國的改革經驗顯示，軍法制度唯有在維持紀律與司法正義間取得平衡，方能兼顧軍事效能與法治原則。

To understand the U.S. military justice system, one must begin with the authority and role of the commander. From its inception, the American system of military law has been designed primarily to maintain discipline and combat readiness, rather than to pursue pure judicial fairness. The commander is not only the enforcer of military law but also the guardian of discipline within the armed forces. When a case arises, the commander is responsible for conducting investigations, consulting with judge advocates, and exercising broad discretion in determining how to proceed—ranging from taking no action or issuing a verbal reprimand, to administrative separation, non-judicial punishment, or the initiation of a court-martial. This structure gives the commander both leadership and quasi-judicial responsibilities, balancing morale and discipline within the unit. However, to prevent abuse of power, the system incorporates multiple checks and balances. Chief among them is Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which prohibits unlawful command influence. This provision explicitly forbids commanders from interfering with the outcome of a trial, intimidating witnesses, or inf luencing court members. In practice, U.S. courts distinguish between actual influence, which directly affects the fairness of a case, and apparent influence, which undermines the perceived legitimacy of the military justice system as a whole. Once the defense presents credible evidence of such influence, the burden shifts to the prosecution, which must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Historical precedents—such as cases in which commanders publicly condemned defendants or pressured witnesses not to testify—have been recognized as clear violations of this prohibition. The broad powers of commanders have long sparked controversy, prompting calls for reform from both the public and Congress. Critics argue that prosecutorial authority should be transferred to independent military prosecutors or civilian judicial bodies to avoid favoritism, under-enforcement, or mishandling of sensitive crimes, particularly sexual assault. In response, Congress passed reforms in 2023 establishing the Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC)—independent prosecutorial units tasked with handling serious offenses such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and homicide—explicitly removing commanders from the decision-making process. In sum, the U.S. military justice system is deeply intertwined with the command structure, traditionally emphasizing discipline and operational effectiveness. While commanders retain significant authority, they are constrained by safeguards against unlawful influence and by appellate oversight. As public awareness of fairness and human rights grows, the system is gradually evolving toward greater separation of powers and professionalization. The American experience demonstrates that only by striking a careful balance between discipline and justice can a military justice system preserve both operational integrity and the rule of law.