Skip to main content
HELPERGEcosystem
JusticeCenterID

Public Safety

When soldiers are sent to help at home, who is actually in command?

The civil authority decides whether and for what — a police request, a governor’s request, an express constitutional permission, a criminal prohibition. Command of the deployed force stays military, and one of these statutes says so in terms, which is a distinction the phrase “in command” usually loses.

Fact-checkedSafety review clearedLast updated Last reviewed

In short

Soldiers appear at floods, earthquakes and sandbagged rivers in most countries, and their presence tells a reader almost nothing about who is in command. The legal question is separate from the visible one: what power do they hold while they are there, whose instructions do they take, and what may they not be used for at all.

Why it exists

AnalysisArmed forces bring things civil authorities often lack at scale and at speed: transport, engineering, logistics, communications, and large numbers of organised people. The reason systems still fence that capability round is not squeamishness — it is that an organisation trained and equipped for armed conflict is holding a different tool from the one a flood requires, and the boundary is what keeps the tool matched to the task.

How it works

The United States states the boundary as a criminal prohibition and then supplies the exception separately. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1385, whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, wilfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws commits an offence.

The Insurrection Act is that express authorisation, and it is not one rule but several. Under 10 U.S.C. § 251, where there is an insurrection in a State against its government, the President may act upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened.

The neighbouring sections are not conditioned on a request. Section 252 reaches unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, that make it impracticable to enforce the laws by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings — a ground that turns on the situation rather than on who asked.

Germany makes the same point as a constitutional rule about permission. Article 87a(2) provides that außer zur Verteidigung dürfen die Streitkräfte nur eingesetzt werden, soweit dieses Grundgesetz es ausdrücklich zuläßt — apart from defence, the armed forces may be deployed only insofar as the Basic Law expressly permits.

Where Article 87a(4) does permit internal deployment — to avert a danger to the existence or free democratic basic order of the Federation or a Land, where the conditions of Article 91(2) are met and police and Federal Border Police do not suffice — the deployment must be discontinued if the Bundestag or the Bundesrat so demands.

Australia writes the subordination into the operative sections. Under the Defence Act 1903, as far as reasonably practicable the Defence Force must assist and cooperate with State and Territory police, and it is not to be utilised for any particular task in those jurisdictions — except in relation to airborne aircraft — unless a member of the police force of that jurisdiction requests it.

And the same section that requires the police request refuses to turn it into command. Section 40(3) provides that subsection (1) does not require or permit the Chief of the Defence Force to transfer to any extent command of the Defence Force to a State or Territory, or to a police force or member of the police force of that State or Territory.

The same Act contains an express civil-liberties restraint. The Chief of the Defence Force must not use the Defence Force to stop or restrict any protest, dissent, assembly or industrial action, except where there is a reasonable likelihood of the death of, or serious injury to, persons, or of serious damage to property.

And civil-emergency use sits outside that regime entirely. Section 123AA is a ministerial-direction and immunity scheme for Defence assistance in preparing for, responding to or recovering from a natural disaster or other emergency, and it confers no coercive power.

Norway states the limit in the Constitution. Section 25(3) of the Grunnlov provides that the Government has no right to use military force against the inhabitants except pursuant to statute, unless an assembly disturbs the public peace and does not immediately disperse after the articles of the law concerning riot have been read aloud to it by the civil authority.

Japan approaches it from the other end, through who asks. Article 83 of the Self-Defense Forces Act provides that a prefectural governor or other person specified by Cabinet Order may request the dispatch of units to the Defence Minister where necessary for the protection of human life or property in a disaster, and the Minister may dispatch units for relief where such a request has been made and the situation is unavoidable.

Common misconceptions

Widely held beliefs that do not match how the system actually operates.

  • Common belief: Sending in the army means the military is running things.

    In practice: Not under any instrument described here. Australia’s Act requires a police request before the Defence Force is used for a particular task; Japan’s dispatch is requested by a prefectural governor; Germany requires the Basic Law to permit the deployment expressly.

  • Common belief: A deployment transfers civilian authority to the military commander.

    In practice: It does not. Australia’s disaster-assistance section confers no coercive power at all, and Japan lets Self-Defence Forces personnel exercise a mayor’s power only where nobody able to exercise it is present.

  • Common belief: Every country allows its armed forces the same domestic role.

    In practice: They do not. The United States makes domestic use to execute the laws a criminal offence absent express authorisation, Norway bars military force against the inhabitants except pursuant to statute, and Germany permits non-defence deployment only where the Basic Law expressly allows it.

  • Common belief: Once soldiers are deployed domestically, only the government can send them home.

    In practice: Not in Germany. An Article 87a(4) deployment must be discontinued if the Bundestag or the Bundesrat so demands — either chamber, acting alone.

  • Common belief: Soldiers helping after a disaster have police powers.

    In practice: Not by virtue of being there. Australia’s s. 123AA assistance scheme confers no coercive power, and Japan’s Act makes the mayor’s power exercisable by others only in the mayor’s absence.

  • Common belief: Armed forces can be used to manage a protest.

    In practice: Australia forbids it in terms, except where death, serious injury or serious property damage is reasonably likely; Norway’s constitutional exception is confined to an assembly that does not disperse after the riot provisions have been read aloud by the civil authority.

How this varies between jurisdictions

A required section on every guide. Arrangements differ between countries, and we say how.

Five techniques for one boundary.

  • A criminal prohibition displaced only by express authorisation — United States, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 with 10 U.S.C. § 251.
  • A constitutional permission requirement, with either chamber able to end the deployment — Germany, GG Art. 87a(2) and (4).
  • A statutory duty to act only at police request, with protest and industrial action expressly excluded — Australia, Defence Act 1903 ss. 39–40.
  • A constitutional bar on military force against the inhabitants except pursuant to statute — Norway, Grunnloven § 25(3).
  • A request-driven dispatch initiated by a prefectural governor — Japan, Self-Defense Forces Act art. 83.

Worked examples

Systems this platform has researched. Each example links to the dossier it draws on.

United States
States the boundary as a CRIMINAL prohibition rather than an allocation: 18 U.S.C. § 1385 makes it an offence to use the armed forces to execute the laws except where expressly authorised by the Constitution or an Act of Congress.
Australia
Subordinates the deployed force to civil policing in operative terms — the ADF must not be used for a particular task in a State or Territory unless a police member of that jurisdiction requests it — and separately forbids using it to stop or restrict protest, dissent, assembly or industrial action except where death, serious injury or serious property damage is reasonably likely.
Norway
Puts the bar in the Constitution itself: § 25(3) provides that the Government has no right to use military force against the inhabitants except pursuant to statute, save where an assembly disturbs the public peace and does not immediately disperse after the law has been read to it.
Japan
Makes disaster dispatch request-driven from a prefectural governor, and lets Self-Defence Forces personnel exercise a municipal mayor’s restricted-area power only where neither the mayor nor anyone able to exercise it is present.

Where the pattern does not hold

Systems at the same level that arrange this differently. The pattern above is a pattern, not a rule.

Ireland
The counter-case on remedies rather than on command. Article 40.4.5 of the Constitution provides that nothing in the habeas corpus section may be invoked to prohibit, control or interfere with any act of the Defence Forces during the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion — so the ordinary route of challenge is expressly withdrawn in that situation.

Rights and accountability

AnalysisThe most useful feature of these provisions is that they create addressees. A deployment that required a police request either had one or did not; a use of the force against a protest either met the statutory exception or did not. Each is a question with an answer, which is what makes the boundary enforceable rather than declaratory.

Ireland shows what the absence of that looks like. Article 40.4.5 provides that nothing in the habeas corpus section may be invoked to prohibit, control or interfere with any act of the Defence Forces during a state of war or armed rebellion — so in that situation the ordinary route of challenge is not narrowed but withdrawn.

AnalysisRecording that is not an argument that Ireland has it wrong. It is the reason a comparative page has to say which system it is describing: the same sentence about the ordinary route of challenge is true of the five systems above and false of Ireland during a state of war or armed rebellion.

What we could not establish

  • Six systems are described from primary text — the United States, Germany, Australia, Norway, Japan and Ireland. Whether any of these powers has been used, how often, or with what result was not researched and is not stated.
  • This page describes legal boundaries. It contains nothing about deployments, capabilities, locations, tactics or rules of engagement, and no such material was researched.

Where to go next

Related: who is in charge in an emergency, gendarmerie, and police and law enforcement are not the same thing.

Related topics

Sources

  1. 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (Posse Comitatus Act) and 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–254 (Insurrection)

    U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo) · Legislation · 1878 · link verified 2026-08-26

    The official United States Code text on govinfo, each section read at its own page. The two are cited together because neither is intelligible without the other: one states a criminal prohibition subject to an exception, the other is the exception. Supports 18 U.S.C. §1385 (Posse Comitatus Act): “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”. Supports 10 U.S.C. §251 (Federal aid for State governments): “Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.”. Supports 10 U.S.C. §252; §253; §254 ("by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time"): “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws”. Cited for the STRUCTURE of the domestic-deployment boundary — a general criminal prohibition on using the armed forces to execute the laws, displaced only where the Constitution or an Act of Congress expressly authorises it. It records no instance of invocation, states nothing about the National Guard in state status, describes no deployment, and supports no claim about any other country.

  2. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz), English translation

    Bundesministerium der Justiz / Bundesamt für Justiz (Gesetze im Internet) · Legislation · 1949-05-23 · link verified 2026-07-24

    Translation by Professors Christian Tomuschat, David P. Currie, Donald P. Kommers and Raymond Kerr in cooperation with the Language Service of the German Bundestag; offered subject to stated conditions of use. The page states the text reflects amendments up to 22 March 2025. THE GERMAN TEXT IS AUTHORITATIVE and the translation may lag later amendments. Supports: Art. 20(1) federal state; Art. 30 (exercise of state powers is a matter for the Länder except as otherwise provided); Art. 70 (Länder legislate unless the Basic Law confers power on the Federation; exclusive vs concurrent); Art. 73(1) no. 10 (cooperation in criminal police matters; establishment of a Federal Criminal Police Office); Art. 74(1) no. 1 (concurrent legislation over criminal law and court organisation and procedure, EXCEPT the law on pre-trial detention); Art. 83 (Länder execute federal laws in their own right); Art. 87(1) (federal law may establish Federal Border Police authorities and central police offices); Art. 92 (judicial power vested in the Federal Constitutional Court, federal courts and the courts of the Länder); Art. 95(1) (the five federal supreme courts); Art. 96 (further federal courts); Art. 97 (judicial independence); Art. 35 (mutual legal and administrative assistance). Does NOT support any claim about how a particular Land organises its institutions. WAVE 19 ADDITION, read from the same official English translation page. NOTE ON NUMBERING, verified rather than assumed: in the current text the COMPOSITION of the Federal Constitutional Court is Article 93 and its JURISDICTION is Article 94 — the reverse of the allocation these two articles carried historically and of the numbering most secondary sources still cite. Supports Art. 93(5): a federal law regulates the organisation and procedure of the Court, and "the law may require that all other legal remedies be exhausted before a constitutional complaint may be filed and may provide for a separate proceeding to determine whether the complaint will be accepted for decision". Supports Art. 94(1) no. 2, ABSTRACT review: the Court rules "in the event of disagreements or doubts concerning the formal or substantive compatibility of federal law or Land law with this Basic Law or the compatibility of Land law with other federal law on application of the Federal Government, of a Land government or of one fourth of the Members of the Bundestag". Supports Art. 94(1) no. 4a, the INDIVIDUAL constitutional complaint: the Court rules "on constitutional complaints, which may be filed by any person alleging that one of his basic rights or one of his rights under paragraph (4) of Article 20 or under Article 33, 38, 101, 103 or 104 has been infringed by public authority". Supports Art. 94(1) no. 4b and 4c (municipal complaints and complaints by associations about non-recognition as political parties), and Art. 94(4), that decisions of the Court bind the constitutional organs. Supports Art. 100(1), CONCRETE review: "If a court concludes that a law on whose validity its decision depends is unconstitutional, the proceedings shall be stayed, and a decision shall be obtained from the Land court with jurisdiction over constitutional disputes where the constitution of a Land is held to be violated or from the Federal Constitutional Court where this Basic Law is held to be violated" — that is, the ordinary court must refer and may not itself disapply the statute. Supports Art. 100(3), that a Land constitutional court proposing to derogate from a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court must obtain a decision from it. The German text remains authoritative and the translation may lag later amendments. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same official English translation page and cross-checked against the German original at gesetze-im-internet.de, article by article. The Grundgesetz carries THREE distinct emergency regimes, and conflating them is the commonest error about it. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 35(1), (2) sentence 2: “(1) Alle Behörden des Bundes und der Länder leisten sich gegenseitig Rechts- und Amtshilfe. (2) [...] Zur Hilfe bei einer Naturkatastrophe oder bei einem besonders schweren Unglücksfall kann ein Land Polizeikräfte anderer Länder, Kräfte und Einrichtungen anderer Verwaltungen sowie des Bundesgrenzschutzes und der Streitkräfte anfordern.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 35(3): “(3) Gefährdet die Naturkatastrophe oder der Unglücksfall das Gebiet mehr als eines Landes, so kann die Bundesregierung, soweit es zur wirksamen Bekämpfung erforderlich ist, den Landesregierungen die Weisung erteilen, Polizeikräfte anderen Ländern zur Verfügung zu stellen, sowie Einheiten des Bundesgrenzschutzes und der Streitkräfte zur Unterstützung der Polizeikräfte einsetzen. Maßnahmen der Bundesregierung nach Satz 1 sind jederzeit auf Verlangen des Bundesrates, im übrigen unverzüglich nach Beseitigung der Gefahr aufzuheben.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 91(2): “(2) Ist das Land, in dem die Gefahr droht, nicht selbst zur Bekämpfung der Gefahr bereit oder in der Lage, so kann die Bundesregierung die Polizei in diesem Lande und die Polizeikräfte anderer Länder ihren Weisungen unterstellen sowie Einheiten des Bundesgrenzschutzes einsetzen. Die Anordnung ist nach Beseitigung der Gefahr, im übrigen jederzeit auf Verlangen des Bundesrates aufzuheben.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 87a(2), (4): “(2) Außer zur Verteidigung dürfen die Streitkräfte nur eingesetzt werden, soweit dieses Grundgesetz es ausdrücklich zuläßt. [...] (4) Zur Abwehr einer drohenden Gefahr für den Bestand oder die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung des Bundes oder eines Landes kann die Bundesregierung, wenn die Voraussetzungen des Artikels 91 Abs. 2 vorliegen und die Polizeikräfte sowie der Bundesgrenzschutz nicht ausreichen, Streitkräfte zur Unterstützung der Polizei und des Bundesgrenzschutzes beim Schutze von zivilen Objekten und bei der Bekämpfung organisierter und militärisch bewaffneter Aufständischer einsetzen. Der Einsatz von Streitkräften ist einzustellen, wenn der Bundestag oder der Bundesrat es verlangen.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115a(1): “(1) Die Feststellung, daß das Bundesgebiet mit Waffengewalt angegriffen wird oder ein solcher Angriff unmittelbar droht (Verteidigungsfall), trifft der Bundestag mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates. Die Feststellung erfolgt auf Antrag der Bundesregierung und bedarf einer Mehrheit von zwei Dritteln der abgegebenen Stimmen, mindestens der Mehrheit der Mitglieder des Bundestages.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115a(2), (3), (4): “(2) Erfordert die Lage unabweisbar ein sofortiges Handeln und stehen einem rechtzeitigen Zusammentritt des Bundestages unüberwindliche Hindernisse entgegen oder ist er nicht beschlußfähig, so trifft der Gemeinsame Ausschuß diese Feststellung mit einer Mehrheit von zwei Dritteln der abgegebenen Stimmen, mindestens der Mehrheit seiner Mitglieder. [...] (4) Wird das Bundesgebiet mit Waffengewalt angegriffen und sind die zuständigen Bundesorgane außerstande, sofort die Feststellung nach Absatz 1 Satz 1 zu treffen, so gilt diese Feststellung als getroffen und als zu dem Zeitpunkt verkündet, in dem der Angriff begonnen hat.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115g: “Die verfassungsmäßige Stellung und die Erfüllung der verfassungsmäßigen Aufgaben des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes und seiner Richter dürfen nicht beeinträchtigt werden. Das Gesetz über das Bundesverfassungsgericht darf durch ein Gesetz des Gemeinsamen Ausschusses nur insoweit geändert werden, als dies auch nach Auffassung des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes zur Aufrechterhaltung der Funktionsfähigkeit des Gerichtes erforderlich ist. Bis zum Erlaß eines solchen Gesetzes kann das Bundesverfassungsgericht die zur Erhaltung der Arbeitsfähigkeit des Gerichtes erforderlichen Maßnahmen treffen.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115l(1), (2): “(1) Der Bundestag kann jederzeit mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates Gesetze des Gemeinsamen Ausschusses aufheben. [...] (2) Der Bundestag kann mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates jederzeit durch einen vom Bundespräsidenten zu verkündenden Beschluß den Verteidigungsfall für beendet erklären. Der Bundesrat kann verlangen, daß der Bundestag hierüber beschließt. Der Verteidigungsfall ist unverzüglich für beendet zu erklären, wenn die Voraussetzungen für seine Feststellung nicht mehr gegeben sind.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 101: “(1) Ausnahmegerichte sind unzulässig. Niemand darf seinem gesetzlichen Richter entzogen werden. (2) Gerichte für besondere Sachgebiete können nur durch Gesetz errichtet werden.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 19(2) and Art. 79(3): “In keinem Falle darf ein Grundrecht in seinem Wesensgehalt angetastet werden. [Art. 19(2)] — Eine Änderung dieses Grundgesetzes, durch welche die Gliederung des Bundes in Länder, die grundsätzliche Mitwirkung der Länder bei der Gesetzgebung oder die in den Artikeln 1 und 20 niedergelegten Grundsätze berührt werden, ist unzulässig. [Art. 79(3)]”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115c(1), (3): “(1) Der Bund hat für den Verteidigungsfall das Recht der konkurrierenden Gesetzgebung auch auf den Sachgebieten, die zur Gesetzgebungszuständigkeit der Länder gehören. Diese Gesetze bedürfen der Zustimmung des Bundesrates. [...] (3) Soweit es zur Abwehr eines gegenwärtigen oder unmittelbar drohenden Angriffs erforderlich ist, kann für den Verteidigungsfall durch Bundesgesetz mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates die Verwaltung und das Finanzwesen des Bundes und der Länder abweichend von den Abschnitten VIII, VIIIa und X geregelt werden, wobei die Lebensfähigkeit der Länder, Gemeinden und Gemeindeverbände, insbesondere auch in finanzieller Hinsicht, zu wahren ist.”. These provisions support the STRUCTURE of German emergency law and nothing about its application. They record no instance of any regime being invoked, state no measure taken under one, and support no claim about any Land's own disaster-protection law or about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read again from the same official English translation page and checked article by article against the authoritative German original at gesetze-im-internet.de/gg. Supports the LIMITATION architecture: Art. 19(1)-(2), “(1) Soweit nach diesem Grundgesetz ein Grundrecht durch Gesetz oder auf Grund eines Gesetzes eingeschränkt werden kann, muß das Gesetz allgemein und nicht nur für den Einzelfall gelten. Außerdem muß das Gesetz das Grundrecht unter Angabe des Artikels nennen. (2) In keinem Falle darf ein Grundrecht in seinem Wesensgehalt angetastet werden.”, and Art. 19(3)-(4) (basic rights apply to domestic legal persons so far as their nature permits; recourse to the courts where rights are violated by public authority, with the second sentence of Art. 10(2) expressly unaffected). Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER finding, verified in the German text rather than the translation because the finding is about a word: Art. 8(1) “Alle Deutschen haben das Recht, sich ohne Anmeldung oder Erlaubnis friedlich und ohne Waffen zu versammeln”; Art. 9(1) “Alle Deutschen haben das Recht, Vereine und Gesellschaften zu bilden”; Art. 11(1) “Alle Deutschen genießen Freizügigkeit im ganzen Bundesgebiet”; Art. 12(1) “Alle Deutschen haben das Recht, Beruf, Arbeitsplatz und Ausbildungsstätte frei zu wählen” — against Art. 2(1) “Jeder hat das Recht auf die freie Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit”, Art. 3(1) “Alle Menschen sind vor dem Gesetz gleich”, and the two provisions that name no holder at all: Art. 10(1) “Das Briefgeheimnis sowie das Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis sind unverletzlich” and Art. 13(1) “Die Wohnung ist unverletzlich”. Supports Art. 1(3), that the basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law. Supports Art. 2(2), that everyone has the right to life and physical integrity, that freedom of the person is inviolable, and that these rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law. Supports the HOME provision in full: Art. 13(2) “Durchsuchungen dürfen nur durch den Richter, bei Gefahr im Verzuge auch durch die in den Gesetzen vorgesehenen anderen Organe angeordnet und nur in der dort vorgeschriebenen Form durchgeführt werden”; Art. 13(3), acoustic surveillance of a home on judicial order where particular facts justify suspicion of an especially serious crime specifically defined by law and alternative methods would be disproportionately difficult or unproductive, for a limited time, ordered by a panel of three judges (a single judge where time is of the essence); Art. 13(4), technical surveillance to avert acute dangers only on judicial order, with a subsequent judicial decision without delay where time was of the essence; Art. 13(5); Art. 13(6), annual reporting to the Bundestag and parliamentary oversight by an elected panel, with comparable oversight in the Länder; and Art. 13(7). Supports the COMMUNICATIONS provision: Art. 10(2), that restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law and that where the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by review by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature. Supports Art. 103(1) (“Vor Gericht hat jedermann Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör”) and Art. 104(1)-(4), including Art. 104(2) “Die Polizei darf aus eigener Machtvollkommenheit niemanden länger als bis zum Ende des Tages nach dem Ergreifen in eigenem Gewahrsam halten” and Art. 104(3), that a person provisionally detained on suspicion of an offence is brought before a judge no later than the day following arrest, who informs, examines, and either issues a written reasoned arrest warrant or orders release. VERIFIED NEGATIVE, and it is stated as a fact about the text and not about German law: the Grundgesetz contains no privilege against self-incrimination and no right to silence. An exhaustive search of the authoritative German text for “Selbstbelastung”, “schweigen”, “Aussage zu verweigern” and “Geständnis” returns zero occurrences, as does a search of the English translation for “incriminat”, “silent”, “silence”, “confession” and “witness against”. This record therefore does NOT support any claim that the principle is absent from German law — it supports only that it is absent from this constitutional text. The German text remains authoritative and the translation may lag later amendments.

  3. Defence Act 1903 (Cth), Part IIIAAA (ss. 30–40, 51ZA–51ZC) and ss. 28 and 123AA — call out of the Defence Force and assistance in a natural disaster or other emergency

    Office of Parliamentary Counsel, Federal Register of Legislation (Australia) · Legislation · 1903 · link verified 2026-08-26

    The compiled Commonwealth text on the Federal Register of Legislation, read directly. Australia states the civil–military boundary in more operative detail than any other instrument in this wave. Supports Defence Act 1903 (Cth), ss. 31, 33(1), 37(5): “authorising Ministers means the Prime Minister, the Minister and the Attorney-General. [..] (1) The Governor-General may make an order under subsection (3) if the authorising Ministers are satisfied that: (a) any of the following applies: (i) domestic violence that would, or would be likely to, affect Commonwealth interests is occurring or is likely to occur in Australia [..] (5) In making, varying or revoking a call out order, the Governor-General is to act with the advice of: (a) the Executive Council; or (b) [..] if, despite paragraph (a), an authorising Minister is satisfied that, for reasons of urgency, the Governor-General should act with the advice of the authorising Minister—the authorising Minister.”. Supports Defence Act 1903 (Cth), s. 35(1): “(1) The Governor-General may make an order under subsection (3) if: (a) a State Government or Government of a self-governing Territory applies to the Commonwealth Government to protect the State or Territory against domestic violence that is occurring, or is likely to occur, in the State or Territory; and (b) the authorising Ministers are satisfied that: (i) the Defence Force should be called out and the Chief of the Defence Force should be directed to utilise the Defence Force to protect the State or Territory against the domestic violence”. Supports Defence Act 1903 (Cth), ss. 33(5)(d) and 35(5)(d): “(5) The order must: [..] (d) state that the order: (i) comes into force when it is made; and (ii) ceases to be in force at the end of a specified period (which must not end more than 20 days after it is made), unless it is revoked earlier.”. Supports Defence Act 1903 (Cth), s. 37(3): “(3) The Governor-General must, in writing, revoke a call out order if: (a) one or more authorising Ministers cease to be satisfied as mentioned in subsection 33(1), 34(1), 35(1) or 36(1) (as the case requires); or (b) for a State protection order—the State Government or Government of the self-governing Territory withdraws its application to the Commonwealth Government for the call out order.”. Supports Defence Act 1903 (Cth), s. 40(1)(b), 40(3): “(b) the Defence Force is not utilised for any particular task in any of those States and Territories (except in relation to airborne aircraft) unless a member of the police force of that State or Territory requests that the Defence Force be so utilised. [..] (3) Subsection (1) does not require or permit the Chief of the Defence Force to transfer to any extent command of the Defence Force to a State or Territory, or to a police force or member of the police force of that State or Territory.”. Supports Defence Act 1903 (Cth), ss. 39(3)(b), 33(4), 35(4): “(b) must not stop or restrict any protest, dissent, assembly or industrial action, except if there is a reasonable likelihood of: (i) the death of, or serious injury to, persons; or (ii) serious damage to property. [..] (4) However, the Reserves must not be called out or utilised in connection with an industrial dispute.”. Supports Defence Act 1903 (Cth), s. 123AA: “(2) The Minister may, in writing, direct the provision of assistance in relation to a natural disaster or other emergency if the Minister is satisfied of either or both of the following: (a) the nature or scale of the natural disaster or other emergency makes it necessary, for the benefit of the nation, for the Commonwealth, through use of the ADF's or Department's special capabilities or available resources, to provide the assistance; (b) the assistance is necessary for the protection of Commonwealth agencies, Commonwealth personnel or Commonwealth property. [..] (7) A direction made under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument. (8) This section does not prevent assistance being provided by or on behalf of the ADF or the Department in circumstances where a direction has not been made under subsection (2).”. Cited for the AUTHORISATION, SUBORDINATION and TERMINATION conditions on domestic deployment, and for the separation between a call out under Part IIIAAA and disaster assistance under s. 123AA, which confers no coercive power at all. It records no call out, describes no deployment, states nothing about how any power would be exercised, and supports no claim about any other country.

  4. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway (Kongeriket Norges Grunnlov), 1814 — Chapters D and E

    Lovdata (official legal database of Norway) · Legislation · 1814 · link verified 2026-07-26

    The 1814 Constitution's official English translation on Lovdata, read (and independently re-confirmed in the verification pass). Supports Art. 87 ("The ordinary courts of justice are the Supreme Court, the courts of appeal and the district courts"), Art. 88 ("The Supreme Court pronounces judgment in the final instance … may in no case be appealed"), Art. 89 (the courts "have the power and the duty to review whether applying a statutory provision is contrary to the Constitution" — constitutional review by the ordinary courts, so there is no separate constitutional court), Art. 90 (judges appointed by the King on the recommendation of an independent council; security of tenure), Art. 91 ("The authorities of the State shall ensure the independent administration of the courts"), and Art. 95 (the independence and impartiality of the courts). Lovdata publishes the English translation officially; the authoritative text is Norwegian. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same Lovdata text of the Grunnlov. Supports Kongeriket Norges Grunnlov § 25 tredje ledd: “Regjeringen har ikke rett til å bruke militær makt mot innbyggerne uten etter lov, med mindre en forsamling forstyrrer den offentlige ro og ikke øyeblikkelig oppløses etter at de lovbestemmelser som angår opprør, tre ganger høyt og tydelig er opplest for forsamlingen av den sivile øvrighet.”. Supports Kongeriket Norges Grunnlov § 26: “Kongen har rett til å innkalle tropper, begynne krig til forsvar av landet og slutte fred, inngå og oppheve forbund, sende og motta sendemenn. Traktater om saker som er av særlig stor viktighet, og i alle tilfeller traktater hvis iverksettelse etter Grunnloven nødvendiggjør en ny lov eller stortingsbeslutning, blir først bindende når Stortinget har gitt sitt samtykke dertil.”. Supports Kongeriket Norges Grunnlov § 17: “Kongen kan gi og oppheve anordninger som angår handel, toll, næringsveier og offentlig regulering; dog må de ikke stride mot konstitusjonen og de lover som Stortinget har gitt i samsvar med de etterfølgende §§ 76, 77, 78 og 79. De gjelder provisorisk til neste Storting.”. Cited for the constitutional bar on using military force against the inhabitants except pursuant to statute. NEGATIVE FINDING, recorded because it is load-bearing: the Grunnlov contains NO written derogation clause for human rights in an emergency, and two separate constitutional-amendment proposals before the Storting say so in terms. This record supports no claim about unwritten doctrine, and no claim about any other country.

  5. 自衛隊法（昭和二十九年法律第百六十五号）第八十三条 — Self-Defense Forces Act, Art. 83 (disaster dispatch), Japanese original text

    Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan (e-Gov 法令検索) · Legislation · 1954 · link verified 2026-08-26

    The authoritative Japanese text, retrieved through the e-Gov law-search data interface. Supports Self-Defense Forces Act (Jieitai Ho), Act No. 165 of 1954, Art. 83: “（災害派遣）第八十三条 都道府県知事その他政令で定める者は、天災地変その他の災害に際して、人命又は財産の保護のため必要があると認める場合には、部隊等の派遣を防衛大臣又はその指定する者に要請することができる。２ 防衛大臣又はその指定する者は、前項の要請があり、事態やむを得ないと認める場合には、部隊等を救援のため派遣することができる。ただし、天災地変その他の災害に際し、その事態に照らし特に緊急を要し、前項の要請を待ついとまがないと認められるときは、同項の要請を待たないで、部隊等を派遣することができる。３ 庁舎、営舎その他の防衛省の施設又はこれらの近傍に火災その他の災害が発生した場合においては、部隊等の長は、部隊等を派遣することができる。４ 第一項の要請の手続は、政令で定める。５ 第一項から第三項までの規定は、武力攻撃事態等における国民の保護のための措置に関する法律第二条第四項に規定する武力攻撃災害及び同法第百八十三条において準用する同法第十四条第一項に規定する緊急対処事態における災害については、適用しない。”. Cited only for the REQUEST-DRIVEN structure of disaster dispatch. It supports no claim about any other function of the Self-Defense Forces, describes no deployment, and supports no claim about any other country.

  6. Bunreacht na hÉireann / Constitution of Ireland — Articles 15.5.2, 28.3, 38, 40.4

    Office of the Attorney General (electronic Irish Statute Book) · Legislation · 1937 · link verified 2026-08-26

    The consolidated text on the electronic Irish Statute Book, read directly. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 28.3.3 (definition of "time of war"): “In this subsection "time of war" includes a time when there is taking place an armed conflict in which the State is not a participant but in respect of which each of the Houses of the Oireachtas shall have resolved that, arising out of such armed conflict, a national emergency exists affecting the vital interests of the State”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 15.5.2 (read with Article 28.3.3): “2° The Oireachtas shall not enact any law providing for the imposition of the death penalty.”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 40.4.1 and 40.4.2: “4 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law. 2° Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law.”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 40.4.3: “3° Where the body of a person alleged to be unlawfully detained is produced before the High Court in pursuance of an order in that behalf made under this section and that Court is satisfied that such person is being detained in accordance with a law but that such law is invalid having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, the High Court shall refer the question of the validity of such law to the Court of Appeal by way of case stated and may, at the time of such reference or at any time thereafter, allow the said person to be at liberty on such bail and subject to such conditions as the High Court shall fix until the Court of Appeal has determined the question so referred to it.”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 40.4.5: “5° Nothing in this section, however, shall be invoked to prohibit, control, or interfere with any act of the Defence Forces during the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion.”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 38.3.1, 38.4.1, 38.5: “3 1° Special courts may be established by law for the trial of offences in cases where it may be determined in accordance with such law that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order. [..] 4 1° Military tribunals may be established for the trial of offences against military law alleged to have been committed by persons while subject to military law and also to deal with a state of war or armed rebellion. [..] 5 Save in the case of the trial of offences under section 2, section 3 or section 4 of this Article no person shall be tried on any criminal charge without a jury.”. Cited for four findings the general accounts get wrong: that the Article 28.3.3 shield is switched on and off by resolutions of BOTH Houses rather than by the Government; that it does not lapse when the conflict ends; that special courts are constitutionally PERMITTED where the ordinary courts are determined inadequate, which is the counter-example to the prohibition found elsewhere; and that the habeas corpus section is expressly disapplied as against acts of the Defence Forces during war or armed rebellion. It records no emergency, states no instance of any of these provisions being used, and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read again from the same Irish Statute Book text of Bunreacht na hÉireann. Supports Art. 29.6 verbatim: “No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas.” Supports Art. 40.4.1°: “No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.” Supports Art. 40.4.2°, and specifically that the remedy is worded more widely than the right it enforces: “Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law.” Supports Art. 40.5: “The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.” Supports Art. 40.6.1° i, that the State guarantees liberty for the exercise of “the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions”, subject to public order and morality. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that Art. 40 repeatedly words rights for the citizen while Art. 40.4.2° words the habeas remedy for any person. IMPORTANT LIMITATION, stated on every page relying on this record: this establishes what the constitutional TEXT says about who holds the right. How the Irish courts have construed “citizen” in Article 40 was NOT researched for this wave, and this record supports no claim about it. WAVE 31 EXTENSION — Article 38 read in full at the same address rather than duplicated into a second record. Supports Art. 38.5 verbatim: “Save in the case of the trial of offences under section 2, section 3 or section 4 of this Article no person shall be tried on any criminal charge without a jury.” Supports the three exceptions it points to: Art. 38.2 (“Minor offences may be tried by courts of summary jurisdiction.”), Art. 38.3.1° (special courts where it is determined that “the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order”), and Art. 38.4 (military tribunals). DOES NOT SUPPORT the size of an Irish jury or how jurors are selected: Article 38 states neither.