Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Categories of Objectors to Military Service

  • Chapter
Conscientious Objection to Military Service in International Human Rights Law

  • 101 Accesses

Abstract

Conscientious objection is an individual choice. It is, therefore, evident that it can take many different forms.1 With regard to conscientious objection to military service, a certain number of conscientious objectors are reluctant to take part in any military activity at all. Other conscientious objectors agree to work in alternative civilian service or in unarmed military service. Yet others refuse to participate only in a particular war or conflict.2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. J. H. Stanfield II, “The Dilemma of Conscientious Objection for Afro-Americans,” in The New Conscientious Objection: From Sacred to Secular Resistance, ed. C. C. Moskos and J. W. Chambers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 45.

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. Brett, “Military Recruitment and Conscientious Objection: A Thematic Global Survey” (Leuven and Geneva: Conscience and Peace Tax Intenational, 2006), 100.

    Google Scholar 

  3. C. C. Moskos and J. W. Chambers, The New Conscientious Objection: From Sacred to Secular Resistance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  4. P. Brock, Twentieth-Century Pacifi’sm (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1970), 40–43.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. J. Eberly, “Alternative Service in a Future Draft,” in The New Conscientious Objection: From Sacred to Secular Resistance, ed. C. C. Moskos and J. W. Chambers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 57–64

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Rodotà, “Conscientious Objection to Military Service,” in Freedom of Conscience, Council of Europe (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1993), 95.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Lippman, “The Recognition of Conscientious Objection to Military Service as an International Human Right,” California Western International Law journal 21 (1990/1991): 31.

    Google Scholar 

  8. S. C. Tucker (ed.), The Encyclopaedia of World War I—A Political, Social, and Military History (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2005), 1568.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. Q. Sibley and P. E. Jacob, Conscription of Conscience: The American State and the Conscientious Objector 1940–1947 (New York: Cornell University Press, 1952), 354–355

    Google Scholar 

  10. Moskos and Chambers, The New Conscientious Objection, 12; J. Rae, Conscience andPolitics: The British Government and the Conscientious Objector to Military Service 1916–1919 (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), 167, 201, 203, 214, 228 the documentary of “Not Forgotten: The Men Who Wouldn’t Fight,” Channel 4, UK, broadcasted on November 10, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  11. In the present day, in Finland, there are approximately 70 total objectors per year; and in Norway, between 100 and 200 total objectors per year refuse to perform military service and alternative service (M. Stolwijk, “The Right to Conscientious Objection in Europe: A Review of the Current Situation” (Brussels: Quaker Council for European Affairs, 2005; updated in 2008), available at http://www.qcea.org/work/human-rights/conscientious-objection/ (accessed September 30, 2013)).

    Google Scholar 

  12. In the UK, by the end of March 1945, the number of alternativist conscientious objectors was 24,625 (Moskos and Chambers, The New Conscientious Objection, 71). During the world wars the UK had noncombatant conscientious objectors in addition to alternativist objectors. (For further information see Peace Pledge Union, “Refusing to Kill,” 8; Moskos and Chambers, The New Conscientious Objection, 72; L. S. Bibbings, Telling Tales aboutMen Conceptions ofConscientious Objectors to Military Service During the First World War (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2009), 36–40; Brock, Twentieth-Century Pacifasm, 177–181).

    Google Scholar 

  13. During the First World War 3,300 conscientious objectors served in the NCC, 100 in the Royal Army Corps and 1,200 in the Friends Ambulance Unit (J. W. Graham, Conscription and Conscience: A History 1916— 1919 (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1922), 349.

    Google Scholar 

  14. “The Position of the Conscientious Objector” (1916), the leaflet in the Library of Friends’ House, London, cited in F. L. Carsten, War against War: British and German Radical Movements in the First World War (London: Batsford Academic and Educational, 1982), 68.

    Google Scholar 

  15. There is no alternative service in Turkey and Azerbaijan (Ö. H. Çinar, “A View on International Implementation of the Right to Conscientious Objection,” in Conscientious Objection: Resisting Militarized Society, ed. Ö. H. Çinar and C. Üsterci (London and New York: Zed Books, 2009), 184–192). For further information see D. Brett, 2012, “The Report to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament- Conscientious Objection to Military Service in Europe 2011/2012,” European Bureau for Conscientious Objection: Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. Michalowski, and L. Woods, German Constitutional Law: The Protection of Civil Liberties (Hants: Ashgate, 1999), 198; see also Eide and Mubanga-Chipoya, “Conscientious Objection to Military Service,” 18.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Çinar, Ö. H., “A View on International Implementation of the Right to Conscientious Objection,” in Conscientious Objection: Resisting Militarized Society, ed. Ö. H. Çinar and C. Üsterci, 188–193 (London and New York: Zed Books, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  18. see also B. Horeman and M. Stolwijk, “Refusing to Bear Arms: A Worldwide Survey of Conscription and Conscientious Objection to Military Service” (London: War Resisters’ International, 1998; updated in 2005), available at www.wri-irg.org/co/rtba/index.html (accessed September 30, 2013); and Stolwijk, “The Right to Conscientious Objection in Europe.”

    Google Scholar 

  19. E. N. Marcus, “Conscientious Objection as an Emerging Human Right,” Virginia Journal of International Law 38 (1997–1998): 541

    Google Scholar 

  20. see also M. Lippman, “The Recognition of Conscientious Objection to Military Service as an International Human Right,” California Western International Law Journal 21 (1990/1991): 31.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Principle II states: “[t]he fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.” For further information see B. Forbes, “Conscientious Objection to Taxation,” in Freedom of Conscience, Council of Europe (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1993), 126

    Google Scholar 

  22. see also C. Whittome, Conscientious Objection to Military Service: A Human Right? (Masters Dissertation, Colchester: University of Essex, 1984), 86–92

    Google Scholar 

  23. M-F. Major, “Conscientious Objection and International Law: A Human Right?” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 24 (1992): 364–365

    Google Scholar 

  24. C. D. de Jong, The Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion or Belief in the United Nations (1946–1992) (Antwerpen-Groningen-Oxford: Intersentia, 2000), 178.

    Google Scholar 

  25. CHR, Resolution no. 1995/83, March 8, 1995, Para. 4. This resolution urges States not to differentiate between conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs nor to discriminate against recognized conscientious objectors for failure to perform military service, in both law and practice; see also Marcus, “Conscientious Objection as an Emerging Human Right,” 541; L. M. Hammer, The International Human Right to Freedom of Conscience: Some Suggestions for Its Development and Application (Dartmouth: Ashgate, 2001), 225

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. E. Capizzi, “Selective Conscientious Objection in the United States,” Journal of Church and State 38 (1996): 359–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. J. P. C. Fogarty, “The Right Not to Kill: A Critical Analysis of Conscientious Objection and the Problem of Registration,” New England Law Review 18 (1982–1983): 678.

    Google Scholar 

  28. J. W. Chambers, “Conscientious Objectors and the American State from Colonial Times to the Present,” in The New Conscientious Objection: From Sacred to Secular Resistance, ed. C. C. Moskos and J. W. Chambers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 36.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Conscientious objector discharge statistic between August 1, 1990 and July 31, 1991, provided by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel), September 19, 1991, cited in Jr. R. L. Larsen and T. G. Hess, “Conscientious Objection in an All-Volunteer Military,” St. John Review 66 (1992): 701–702.

    Google Scholar 

  30. C. Cohen, “Conscientious Objection,” Ethics 78 (1968): 278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. “Detroit Bishop Asks for Conscientious Objectors,” LosAngeles Times, November 12, 1990, 13, available at http://articles.latimes.com/1990–11–12/news/ mn-3285_1–bishops-conscientious-objectors (accessed September 30, 2013); see also Larsen and Hess, “Conscientious Objection,” 702; The Catholic Bishops of the United States, “Declaration on Conscientious Objection and Selective Conscientious Objection,” October 21, 1971, United States Catholic Conference, Washington, DC, cited in W. J. Wagner, “The Right to Accommodation: Should it be Legislatively Recognized?” in Selective Conscientious Objection Accommodating Conscience and Security, ed. Jr. M. F. Noone (Boulder, San Francisco and London: Westview, 1989), 25; Fogarty, “The Right Not to Kill,” 655–686

    Google Scholar 

  32. K. Greenawalt, “Accommodation to Selective Conscientious Objection: How and Why,” in Selective Conscientious Objection Accommodating Conscience and Security, ed. Jr. M. F. Noone (Boulder, San Francisco and London: Westview, 1989), 8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Özgür Heval Çınar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2013 Özgür Heval Çınar

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Çınar, Ö.H. (2013). Categories of Objectors to Military Service. In: Conscientious Objection to Military Service in International Human Rights Law. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137366085_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation