Members of the Estonian Defense Committee, particularly those with military backgrounds, have expressed concerns that the current judiciary is not adequately prepared for potential military conflicts. They propose the establishment of a separate military court to handle issues related to defense matters. This proposal has gained traction with support from opposition parties and is being incorporated into civil crisis and defense legislation. However, Justice Minister Liisa Pakosta has opposed this idea, arguing that duplicating the court system is unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional.

The idea of creating a military court is not new; similar discussions took place in the Estonian Parliament six years ago. The revival of these talks highlights the ongoing considerations of how best to equip the Estonian legal system to handle military-related cases effectively. Proponents of the new court, such as Leo Kunnas, Peeter Tali, Alar Laneman, and Meelis Kiili, emphasize the need for legislation that considers the unique aspects of military operations, particularly in wartime scenarios.

According to the proposal, the military court would function during a state of war and would provide expedited resolutions for a variety of military-related issues, thereby enhancing the operational readiness of the military and addressing personnel concerns more efficiently. The implications of this measure raise questions about the intersection of military and civilian judicial responsibilities in Estonia and define the legal framework necessary to support national defense amidst modern challenges.