Source: (2013) The Ohjo State Journal on Dispute Resolution. 28(2):419-490.

The use of a neutral party to intercede between two or more disputing parties with the goal of facilitating a mutually-acceptable resolution, settlement, or agreement-i.e., mediation-has never been critically evaluated as a possible procedure within the field of military criminal justice. This article explores whether mediation may march alongside orthodox criminal procedure-as it does in civilian jurisdictions-without undervaluing traditional philosophies that guide military justice, and without undermining traditional sources of prosecutorial authority: military commanders. Current military doctrine (both operational and legal) supports non-traditionalp roblem-solving systems, of which mediation should be considered a part. Relation-based misconduct provides the most appropriate candidate of crime particularly ripe for mediation within military units, especially when framed against a genuine and historicallyjustifiable command interest in preserving or repairing "unit cohesion." While pragmatic and legal counter-arguments against mediation are reasonably sound, there is nothing intrinsic to the military scheme ofjustice that makes them any more persuasive. Rather, when translated into a military culture, these criticisms and concerns reflect the same underlying tensions between traditionalp rosecutoriala uthority, efficiency, victim rights, and preventive law. Ultimately, whether in the form of a system that directly employs mediation parallel to orthodox justice, or in the form of a new skill set for military leaders employed indirectly as part of their routine leadership functions, mediation need not be considered alien nor an anathema to current military justice as exercised by military commanders. (author's abstract)