Article 3 of the Constitution of INTERPOL strictly prohibits the organisation from intervening in military, political, religious, or racial matters. This principle of neutrality makes military-related cases particularly sensitive and legally complex within INTERPOL cooperation.

While purely military offences fall outside INTERPOL’s mandate, the classification of an offence as “military” is not always straightforward. Context and substance are decisive. Where the conduct is not predominantly military in nature, INTERPOL may still lawfully engage.

1. Purely Military Offences – Automatically Excluded

INTERPOL categorically refuses to process cases involving purely military offences such as desertion, draft evasion, or absence without leave (AWOL). Even when such acts are criminalised under national law, they are excluded unless they constitute violations of the laws of war.

Key principle: INTERPOL does not enforce military discipline.

2. Military Courts – Not Automatically Excluded

The involvement of a military tribunal alone does not necessarily violate Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution. What matters is the substance of the offence. If the underlying conduct constitutes an ordinary-law crime such as theft or assault, INTERPOL may accept the case, even if adjudicated by a court-martial. However, when the charges are closely tied to military discipline (e.g., desertion or insubordination), the situation becomes more complex and may lead to exclusion.

3. Ordinary Crimes Committed in Military Contexts – Permissible

INTERPOL distinguishes between military offences and ordinary-law crimes committed within a military environment. For instance, if a soldier murders an army base, it remains an ordinary-law offence. The military setting alone does not disqualify the case; the nature of the crime itself is determinative.

4. Acts Committed During Armed Conflicts – Generally Excluded

When alleged acts occur in the context of an armed conflict, INTERPOL usually refuses to process the request unless the conduct amounts to war crimes or other international crimes. For example, the killing of combatants or attacks on military targets, even if prohibited under national law, are generally viewed as military or political acts and fall outside INTERPOL’s remit.

5. International Crimes with Military Elements – Admissible with Caution

Certain crimes, although committed in military contexts, fall outside military law and derive from international criminal law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide (Rome Statute).

INTERPOL may process such cases, particularly when requests originate from international criminal tribunals. However, admissibility is subject to strict scrutiny, and objections from member states may still result in data being blocked under INTERPOL’s internal safeguards.

Key Takeaway: Substance Over Labels

INTERPOL is not a mechanism for enforcing military discipline or advancing political objectives. Its jurisdiction depends on the substance, context, and legal character of the offence, rather than on the involvement of military actors or institutions.

In military-related cases, classification is decisive. When an offence crosses into ordinary criminal law or international criminal law, INTERPOL involvement may be lawful. When it remains disciplinary, political, or operational, Article 3 will bar cooperation.