Temporary rule of a designated area by military authorities in time of emergency when the civil

authorities are deemed unable to function. Under martial law, civil rights are usually suspended, and the
activities of civil courts are restricted or supplanted entirely by military tribunals. Such "acts done by
necessity" are limited only by international law and the conventions of civilized warfare. Though
temporary in theory, a state of martial law may in fact continue indefinitely. See also human rights; war
crimes.

martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an
emergency basis—usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to
function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are
extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. In most
cases, military forces are deployed to quiet the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or
sensitive locations, and to maintain order.[1] Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and
perform some or all of their functions. The constitution could be suspended, and in full-scale martial law,
the highest ranking military General would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head
of the government, thus removing all power from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the
federal government.[1]

Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Such incidents may occur
after a coup d'état (Thailand 2006); when threatened by popular protest (China, Tiananmen Square
protests of 1989); to suppress political opposition (Poland in 1981); to stabilize insurrections or perceived
insurrections (Canada, The October Crisis of 1970). Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural
disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct, such as a "state of emergency".

Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any
other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this form of military rule include
post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan as well as the southern reconstruction following
the U.S. Civil War.

Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil
rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians.
Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).

Martial law is government by military authorities when the normal machinery of civilian
administration has broken down as a result of disaster, invasion, civil war, or large-scale
insurrection. It is not to be confused with military law. Any trial of civilians held by military
authorities under martial law would not enjoy the status of a court martial.

In the Middle Ages, martial law meant law administered by the court of the constable and
marshal and from that court originated both the martial and military law of today. In Britain, it
now means the law applicable by virtue of the royal prerogative to foreign territory occupied
for the time being by the armed forces of the British Crown. Except insofar as the ordinary
courts of the occupied territory are permitted to continue to exist and administer, justice is
administered by military tribunals according to rules established by the military authorities of
the occupying forces.

Martial law may also be established within a state itself in substitution for the ordinary
government and legal system during serious disturbances. Again, in this event, justice is
administered by military tribunals. Usually while the military authorities are restoring order,
their conduct cannot be called into question by the ordinary courts of law. After the
restoration of order, the legality of the military's actions might well be theoretically capable of
examination. In Britain, this has not occurred since the 17th century. It cannot be declared in
time of peace and it is uncertain whether martial law may be declared in emergency by act of
royal prerogative or whether it always requires the approval of parliament. In either case, as
mentioned above, the civil courts cannot interfere with the acts of the military in pursuance of
their powers.
In other countries, a state of war has not necessarily been a prerequisite to a declaration of
martial law or, more commonly, a ‘state of siege’. In April 1989, students, teachers, and
human rights activists began demonstrating in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. The
demonstrations took place against the communist regime in China, against a backdrop of
reform in other communist countries. Over the following months the number of demonstrators
swelled to over one million people. Deng Xiao Ping evidently believed that this constituted a
serious threat to his government and declared martial law on 20 May 1989; 300, 000 troops,
largely from rural areas in China, were sent to Beijing. The People's Liberation Army put an end
to the occupation on 3-4 June: up to 3, 000 people lost their lives, as many as 10, 000 were
wounded, and there were countless arrests. This brutal use of martial law incensed world
opinion but firmly re-established the hard-line Chinese regime.

Another example of a communist regime that used the tool of martial law to suppress internal
dissent was Gen Wojciech Jaruzelski's Polish government in 1981. Although he used
considerable force to crush the Solidarnosc (Solidarity) Trade Union, the morality of this
imposition of martial law is less clear cut. The Solidarity movement was the most serious
challenge to the Soviet system since the Prague Spring (in 1968). The Soviet government was
worried by the Polish Communist Party's apparent willingness to compromise with the dissident
movement and even though Stanisaw Kania, head of the Polish party, assured Moscow control
could be maintained, the KGB believed otherwise. Thus, the Soviet army held some very
threatening manoeuvres on the Polish border. Kania and Jaruzelski, who had become PM,
visited Moscow and were told ‘the socialist community is indivisible and its defence is the
concern of not just each individual state, but the socialist coalition as a whole’. This was a
very explicit warning. Jaruzelski declared martial law in December 1981 and used the army and
police apparatus to quash, albeit temporarily, the Solidarity movement. He also arrested many
of its leaders. It is not clear whether he imposed martial law out of a genuine desire to
suppress Solidarity or to forestall an imminent invasion by the Soviet army, thus avoiding both
turning Poland into a battleground like Hungary in 1956 and having a Soviet-imposed regime
whose repression would have been much worse. If the latter is the case, this is an example of
using martial law for a political end vital to the continued independence of the country. In
February 1996 a parliamentary committee leaned to the latter interpretation, recommending
that Jaruzelski should not face prosecution for declaring martial law in 1981.

Among aspects of martial law are censorship of radio and newspapers, prohibition of
the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, prohibition of gatherings of
more than five persons in the street, and requirement of a permit from the
local military authorities before any public meeting can be held. Religious
meetings inside buildings may be tolerated by the authorities, held at hours not
conflicting with the curfew.
In rare cases, martial law has been in effect with armed soldiers barring
citizens from being out-of-doors after sunset.