Editing Martial law (section)

== Overview ==
Despite the fact that it has been declared frequently throughout history, martial law is still often described as largely elusive as a legal entity.<ref name="Moore2017">{{Cite book |last=Moore |first=Cameron |title=Crown and Sword: Executive power and the use of force by the Australian Defence Force |date=9 November 2017 |publisher=[[ANU Press]] |doi=10.22459/cs.11.2017 |isbn=978-1-76046-155-3 |doi-access=free }}</ref> References to martial law date back to 1628 England, when [[Matthew Hale (jurist)|Sir Matthew Hale]] described martial law as, "no Law, but something indulged rather than allowed as a Law."<ref name="Moore2017" /> Despite being centuries old, this quote remains true in many countries around the world today. Most often, the implementation of martial law arises from necessity rather than legal right, and while some countries have provisions explicitly permitting the use of martial law, many do not.<ref name="Moore2017" /> For countries that do not explicitly permit the declaration of martial law, but where martial law has been declared, the legal justification for it is often the common law [[doctrine of necessity]], or some variation of it.

=== Common law doctrine of necessity and martial law ===
One legal theory most frequently associated with martial law is the common law doctrine of necessity.<ref name="Moore2017" /> While many countries, the United States for example, do not have the explicit constitutional right to declare martial law, scholars often interpret the law of the United States to allow for the implementation of martial law in times of necessity.<ref name="brennancenter">{{Cite web |title=Guide to Declarations of Martial Law in the United States {{!}} Brennan Center for Justice |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-declarations-martial-law-united-states |access-date=3 April 2023 |language=en}}</ref> Countries such as Pakistan have famously implemented this rationale as well.<ref>Mark M. Stavsky, ''The Doctrine of Necessity in Pakistan'', 16 Cornell Int. L. J. 2 (1983) https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1128&context=cilj .</ref>