面對戰爭的必然與殘酷，原有社會將產生劇烈的變化，國家秩序出現混 亂，平時的訴訟程序將無法正常運作，所以先哲有「法律在戰爭中緘默不語」、 「緊迫時無法律」的著名論述。然隨著人權觀念的普及，戰爭型態的改變，開 始戰爭行為的新規範。 傳統思維認為戰時軍事審判的存在，係為擴大軍事權力，加強限制人民權 利，維護軍隊秩序和紀律，取得戰爭適應性的需要，這種強調以秩序價值為核 心，是戰時軍事審判論證的主軸；然從戰時情況可能發生無序狀態觀察，如何 制約指揮官以戰爭需要為藉口，為所欲為，要求國家機關只有在法律規範下始 可對「受審判者」進行審判，以便得到公正、公平對待的正義價值，同時獲得 軍隊秩序和紀律的秩序價值，是戰時軍事審判運作機制之核心所在。

Being confront with the necessity and cruelty of war, the original society will meet with dramatic transitions, and the order of the country will become chaotic. In addition, the procedure of lawsuit could not function normally. Therefore, well goes the old saying:"laws keep silent at war.", "no law during emergency." However, new rules of war behavior have emerged with the universality of human rights and the change of the war model. Traditional thought argues that the existence of wartime military justice is the key to expand military powers, to restrict human rights, to maintain order and discipline of the troops, and to fulfill the needs of war adjustment. This point putting core emphasis upon the value of order is the central argument of wartime military justice. Due to the probability of non-order status at war, the essence of wartime military justice should fall upon the idea to prevent Commanders from acting unrestrictedly through the excuse of 'war necessity', and to request that the state try "defendant" under the rule of law in order to fulfill impartial justice, while maintaining order and discipline of the troops.