Extraordinary court

An extraordinary court is the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, which is basically a chamber in the national court of Cambodia that is specially designed to judge crimes of the Khmer Rouge such as the Cambodian genocide, but its judges are not of the ordinary Cambodian judiciary but are selected among international candidates nominated by Secretary-General of the United Nations, according to an agreement between United Nations and the Cambodian government.^[2]

In modern Germany, the establishment of extraordinary courts (German: Ausnahmegerichte) is strictly prohibited by article 101(1) of the Constitution of Germany,^[3] in reflection of judicial murder by People's Court (German: Volksgerichtshof), which was a kind of German: Sondergericht that was established during Nazi Germany. The term German: Sondergericht itself means just the concept of 'special court', but the use of that term is discouraged, as it can referred to legacy of Nazis, That causes contemporary courts in Germany with special jurisdiction (such as 'Federal Social Court' on cases of social security matters) to be called a kind of 'specialized court' (German: Fachgerichte), composed of ordinary judges.

In that way, Article 101(1) of the Constitution is explained as forbidding establishment of both extraordinary court and special courtas, which are substantially the same concept.^[4] As the Constitution bans judgments by irregularly-composed judges, courts in the City of Kempten with special jurisdiction on military justice in Germany are also constituted by ordinary judges, according to Section 11a of German Criminal Code.^[5]

In contemporary South Korea, the establishment of special courts (Korean: 특별법원), meaning extraordinary courts (Korean: 예외법원) is exceptionally allowed only for a military court, according to Article 110(1) of the Constitution of South Korea.^[6] It is notable that Justices at the Constitutional Court must have qualification as judges, which includes Justices in the Supreme Court of Korea, in ordinary courts, but Article 111(2) of the Constitution does not rerquire military judges in the Military Court of Korea to have competence as ordinary court judges by 110(3) of the Constitution.^[6] The Constitutional Court of Korea explains that constitutional difference of qualification among ordinary court judges (including Supreme Court Justices), military judges and Constitutional Court Justices as constitutional grounds for non-qualified senior military officers to participate in military court judgments as adjudicators (Korean: 심판관), together with qualified military judges (Korean: 군판사) in exceptional cases,^[7] according to article 22(3) of the Military Court Act.^[8]

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has the authority to issue warrants authorizing surveillance of suspected foreign spies or terrorists. FISA warrant requests are rarely denied. If an application is denied by one judge of the court, the federal government is not allowed to make the same application to a different judge of the court but may appeal to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Such appeals are rare: the first appeal from the FISC to the Court of Review was made in 2002 (In re Sealed Case No. 02-001), 24 years after the founding of the court.

There are also military courts designed to judicially try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are distinct from courts-martial. These were most recently created under the George W. Bush administration and authorized by the Military Commissions Acts under the Bush and Obama administrations to assert jurisdiction over terror suspects designated as unlawful enemy combatants.

• Court
• Military court
• Ordinary court
• Specialized court