| Research into the history of Canadian military law during the Great War has received scant attention by historians. British studies into the subject have, until recently, been political in nature, with a focus on discrediting the legality and conclusions of courts martial during the war. However, the research done on the subject has been plagued by methodological problems, resulting in political conclusions which are not supported by historical evidence. In an effort to redefine the subject of military law during the Great War, this study critically engages the previous work done on the subject, establishes the legal status of the Canadian forces during the war, re-constructs the theory of military law and the procedures and legislation of courts martial during the war, and provides concrete examples of specific court martial cases. The significance of the conclusions derived from this study demonstrates that there is reason to doubt the predominant assumption that courts martial during the war were arbitrary, and questions the arguments in favour of pardons for those executed during the war. Finally, this study illustrates the need for analyses of court martial trials specifically, rather than crimes, in an effort to provide a more accurate historical understanding of Canadian military law during the Great War. |
