Table of contentsWhat is meant by "discipline"?Why does an army need a concept such as "discipline"?ConclusionBibliographyWhat what do we mean by “discipline”? The term “discipline” has a wide range of meanings when considered with armed troops. According to Frank Burns, “without discipline, the army would just be a bunch of guys wearing the same color clothes.” This quote reveals the importance of discipline when it comes to armed troops. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayAccording to Collins dictionary meaning, 'discipline' is the quality of being able to behave and work in a controlled manner, which involves obeying particular rules. or standards. As the definition states, members must adhere to the rules and regulations imposed by the particular organization they represent in order to maintain the organization's existing disciplinary system. In the Cambridge dictionary, the meaning of discipline has been stated as: "training that makes people more willing to obey or more able to control themselves, often in the form of rules and punishments for non-obedience." respect for these, or behaviors produced by this training.” According to its meaning, discipline is a chance that has been given by the authorities to the members in order to control their own behavior through the tasks to which they are aligned. Why does an army need a concept like “discipline”? According to Frank Burns' quote the army is only complete if it has discipline among it. In the mid-18th century, the British Army also faced the challenge of tarnishing the reputation of the armed forces, both by its own soldiers and its officers. Most members of the armed forces tended to commit the crimes of “desertion” and “mutiny”. [As they were subjected to continuous wars and conflicts, their minds were in a phase where they sought relief and returned to their loved ones. Crimes like desertion were committed specifically for this reason. The mutiny occurred because these soldiers were constantly experiencing wars and conflicts. This spirit of violence had directly influenced their behavior.] At the very beginning, there were no properly codified disciplinary measures. But when they found their image continually tarnished, legislatures created offense and punishment sections of the Armed Forces Acts. Since Sri Lanka also follows the contents of the British Army Act, Sri Lanka also has similar chapters for military offenses and their punishments. Part Ⅻ of the Army Act concerns military offenses and punishments should be imposed based on individuals. [The infractions that will be committed by soldiers and officers, as well as the sanctions imposed on them, are important factors when studying discipline since the concept of discipline is built with these pillars. If the infractions violate discipline, the sanctions are there to restructure the gap created. Therefore, infractions and their penalties are important for a study carried out on “Discipline”. ]The Army Act lists the offense of “disobedience to a superior officer” as one of the common offenses among military personnel. If a person who governs according to military law disobeys his superior officer in the exercise of his duties, such person is punished with any severe penalty mentioned in article 133. This offense will seriouslyundermining the disciplinary order of the armed forces, because if one does not obey the superior, then others will also be influenced by this and the soldiers will act according to their own orders. [In this context, disobeying means willfully ignoring the execution of orders given orally or in writing, by signals or otherwise.] [This will be extremely affected while armed troops are on active duty in a war situation. If the soldiers are not going to adhere to the orders of their superior, then this will be directly affected by the final outcome of the war and this will then result in a threat centered on the security of the state. At the same time, it will affect the outlook of the society towards the drudgery of the armed forces and will harm the faith of the society towards the armed forces.]In the case of Chandrasena v. Commander of the Sri Lanka Army and others, the accused was charged with two offenses mentioned in the Army Act. One of them is conduct “prejudicial to good order and military discipline” under subsection 102(1). This type of offense committed by any member of the armed forces will generate a huge debate within the entire society, because the perspective towards the armed forces is a sensitive factor that also directly affects the national security of a State. [Article 102(1) focuses on disobedience of armed forces personnel towards the garrison and other orders issued by higher authorities. This garrison and other orders contain standing orders, movement orders as well as duty roasters which are issued from time to time due to necessities which arise. If a soldier fails to obey a movement order given to him while on active duty in a time of war, this will be affected by the final outcome of the war. Under movement orders, if a soldier requests to report to a particular location at a particular time, then he must be there at the time ordered to him, as he is able to carry out any lawful order that is given to him as an army order while he enlists. war or regular service.] According to Section 103 of the Army Act, one of the most common offenses is "desertion", which can be considered a bit of a terrible situation if the we consider the reputation of the army. Most soldiers, rather than officers, commit the crime of desertion. The terrible situation that can result from desertion will be that of civil offenses committed by deserters from the armed forces. Even though people appreciate and trust what the military has done in war and other conflict situations as well as during natural disasters, once a member of the armed forces commits a single offense, they are used to blaming the army as a whole. [More recently, serious civil offenses such as murder, rape, theft, and attempted and suicide with weapons have been committed by abandoned armed persons. Additionally, some of these deserted service members are used to commit other serious crimes such as drug trafficking as well as drug distribution.] In particular, deserted individuals who illegally possess their weapons more often commit serious crimes such as murders which are punishable by general criminal law. the courts as well. Moreover, with these weapons they can even commit suicide. If such persons are caught attempting suicide, then they are liable to the offense of “duel and attempted suicide” under Section 127 of the Army Act. [In such situations, soldiers or officers are liable for several offenses like desertion, illegal possession of army weapons, absence without leaveas well as crimes such as murder.] [If anyone, subject to military law, fights, promotes, is involved in or complicit in combat or attempts suicide, then for officers the maximum penalty will be collection while the soldiers will be sentenced to rigorous or simple imprisonment. Again, for suicide attempts, the courts impose criminal deductions equal to the cost of treatment.] Under section 104(1), the offense of “fraudulent enlistment” is mentioned. This offense can be considered to some extent a threat to national security. In this context, anyone can provide the relevant documents using fraudulent information in order to recruit into the army. Considering the contemporary security issues occurring across the world, if such fraudulent enlistment took place even terrorists, deserters from foreign armed forces as well as criminals can be enlisted into the armed forces. [Fraudulent enlistment may be committed by providing illegal documents based on the qualifications required for selection into the armed forces. For example, birth certificates, other certificates required on diplomas can be established in accordance with the requirements of the armed forces. Additionally, if the person has already been discharged from the military, then he or she may fabricate fraudulent documents in order to re-enlist in the armed forces. If such a person who left the military has committed a serious offense such as committing murder and may have enlisted fraudulently, then society may be questioned about such enlistment as it clearly appears to be a threat to national security of the country in question.] In any case, if a terrorist could enter an armed force, then the most sensitive security secrets could be passed to rebels or other foreign states through that person. This is why severe sanctions should be imposed on these people in order to prevent further recruitment that could take place. In addition, the penalty must be proportional to the offense committed. The punishment cannot be either severe enough or insufficient for the offense. [If an enemy state becomes aware of such sensitive security secrets, it will pose a huge threat to the country because enemies can easily attack it with the information they have and the country in question may not stand a chance to remedy it. threats that will be directed against the security of the state.] In the case of Captain Nawarathna against Major General Sarath Fonseka and 6 others, the offense of "scandalous conduct of an officer" and the offense of "conduct detrimental to military discipline” were taken into consideration. . The case arose from an action by a captain in the Sri Lankan army which amounted to an officer's offense and which ultimately called into question the discipline of army officers. The case concerned the rejection of a promise of marriage after having sexual intercourse several times with the fiancée even though she had signed an affidavit before the army commander. [The petitioner, who was a captain in the Sri Lankan Army, was in a relationship with his then fiancée. They had a relationship for over 10 years and the applicant had sex with her, telling her he would marry her. However, the petitioner refused to marry her and she later took the matter to the petitioner's superiors and then after explaining the seriousness of the act, the petitioner promised to marry his fiancée within 6 months. Then later he informed that he would not marry her under any circumstances and this was again brought to the notice of the superior. After conducting an investigation, they. 2020.