Wars have marked humanity since the dawn of civilisation, and throughout history, both informal and formal rules have sought to govern conduct in conflict. A surrendered enemy was to be treated with dignity, and certain means and methods of warfare were deemed unacceptable. However, these codes of chivalry primarily extended only to officers until the 18th–19th centuries, united by social status and a code of honour that transcended national borders. For common soldiers and civilians, the reality was far harsher. Violence against surrendered rank-and-file soldiers, alongside looting, rape, and the killing of civilians in conquered territories, remained common aspects of warfare.

Religion, philosophers, and rulers have tried to reduce the suffering caused by war. Modern international humanitarian law finds its foundation in the works of Alberico Gentili, who taught at the University of Oxford in the late 16th century, and the Dutch scholar Hugo Grotius in the 17th century. It developed more rapidly from the 19th century onward as advances in science and technology produced weapons of greater destructive power. International conferences in the late 19th and 20th centuries addressed critical issues including the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction, treatment of prisoners of war, care for the wounded and sick, and the rights and obligations of occupying forces. These deliberations culminated particularly in the Hague and Geneva conventions, which remain the cornerstone of international humanitarian law today.

The military must establish order in war zones and occupied territories through specialised legal and law enforcement systems. Military policing and judicial bodies are integral components of military operations and warfare. During conflicts, nations often declare a state of war or emergency across their territories or in specific regions. Military courts primarily serve to prosecute military personnel who violate the laws of war and military law. However, during martial law, civilians may also fall under military court jurisdiction. Distinct from standard military justice were extraordinary proceedings, including field courts-martial conducted in active war zones. These extraordinary tribunals could prosecute military personnel, prisoners of war, but in some cases, civilians as well.

Historical examples demonstrate the severity of such measures. During the revolution in Russia and its Baltic provinces in 1905, field courts martial issued harsh sentences including corporal punishment, Siberian exile, and execution. Field courts martial operated during World War I and the post-World War I wars of independence. The penal practice of field courts martial of the armies of young countries was not always more lenient than that of the infamous Cheka on the opposing side. Ideological dictatorship and authoritarian regimes of the 20th century used similar extraordinary trials, tribunals resembling field courts martial, or military courts against their ideological opponents.

The 20th-century history of the Baltic countries also contains examples of a punishment similar to decimation, as it was known in ancient times – the execution of randomly selected soldiers of a unit for rebellion, retreat, or cowardice. Ideological dictatorships and authoritarian regimes of the 20th century used similar extraordinary trials and tribunals resembling field courts martial, or military courts, against their ideological opponents.

The upcoming Baltic Military History Conference will examine laws of war and military justice practices through a historical lens, exploring their profound effects on societies, people, and state institutions.

While contemporary international humanitarian law falls outside our scope, the conference welcomes thoughtful historical analyses that may illuminate parallels with present circumstances.