Professional soldiers and the right to conscientious objection in the European Union: Summary
This publication provides an overview of the present state of the right to conscientious objection in the European Union, including the candidate countries Croatia, Turkey, and FYROM (Macedonia). This publication was produced in close co-operation with War Resisters' International (WRI). It builts on the global survey on the situation of conscientious objectors by War Resisters' International from 1998 [1] and their update by Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA) from 2005 [2]. For this publication the survey has undergone a major update; it has been reworked and brought up to date, as the situation in many countries changed a lot since 2005.
For the first time this publication attempts to systematically also provide information on the right to conscientious objection for contract and professional soldiers. In became clear that on this issue there is a lack of information. Only five countries (Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Hungary, and Turkey) replied to a questionnaire sent by War Resisters' International to all embassies of the relevant countries in November 2007, and even those replies often were not satisfactory in relation to the information given, and did not contribute much to understanding the situation.
It can already now be said that there still exists a considerable need for more research on this issue. That presently the situation is changing in quite a few countries (Poland, Sweden) does not make it easier, and it is presently difficult to obtain concrete information on these countries.
The right to conscientious objection in international law
The right to conscientious objection is derived from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [3] (ICCPR) and from Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights [4], which deal with freedom of religion, thought and conscience. Although Article 10 of the planned European Charter of Fundamental Rights does recognises the right to conscientious objection, it does so only within the limits of national laws [5]. Article 10 itself does not include any standards for the right to conscientious objection. To use this article to develop an argument in favour of the Lisbon treaty, which rightfully has been rejected in Ireland, therefore does not have any political logic. The Lisbon treaty is and remains an EU treaty of neoliberal and military orientation.
On the global level, both, the (former) Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations, the then highest UN forum in relation to human rights made up of government representatives, and the Human Rights Committee, the expert body of the United Nations in charge of interpreting the International Covenant, dealt with the question of conscientious objection several times. Since 1989, resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights (adopted without a vote), recognised “the right of everyone to have conscientious objections to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” [6]. The Human Rights Committee identifies conscientious objection to military service as a protected form of manifestation of (religious) belief within Article 18(1) of the Covenant. In its most recent and definitive case [7] on the subject (Mr. Yeo-Bum Yoon and Mr. Myung-Jin Choi v Republic of Korea), it held that the Republic of Korea had violated Article 18 by not recognising the right to conscientious objection to military service.
In its resolution from 1998, the Commission on Human Rights also recognised that “persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections” [8].
Consequently, an application for conscientious objection has to be possiblr at any time – before, during and after military service, and also for professional soldiers. The European Parliament phrased it similarly when it demanded in its resolution from 1989 that “all conscripts must be entitled to refuse military service [...] on grounds of conscience” [9].
Consequently the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe demanded from member states on 24 March 2006 in a decision on human rights in the Armed Forces to “introduce into their legislation the right to be registered as a conscientious objector at any time, namely before, during or after implementation of military service, as well as the right of career servicemen to obtain the status of conscientious objector” [10]. Already Council of Europe recommendation 1581 of 2001 [11] suggested to member states to recognise the right to conscientious objection also for professional soldiers.
The practice in the European Union
The practice in the countries of the European Union and the candidate countries differs hugely from the standards established in international law. The gravest violations are:
- the candidate country Turkey does not recognise the right to conscientious objection, neither for conscripts, nor for contract and professional soldiers. Conscientious objectors are imprisoned and sentenced repeatedly.
- Greece and Finland require a substitute service that in practice is almost twice the length of military service. In addition Greece does rarely recognise non-religious conscientious objectors.
- In many countries of the European Union total objectors, who also refuse a substitute service for reasons of conscience, are imprisoned. At present especially the situations in Finland and Germany are problematic.
- The great majority of the countries that maintain conscription limit the possibility to apply for conscientious objection to the time before the call-up, and therefore do not provide serving conscripts or reservists with the right to conscientious objection.
- With the exception of three countries – Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom – none of the countries considered in the publication does recognise the right to conscientious objection for contract and professional soldiers.
- While in the United Kingdom professional soldiers have the right to conscientious objection, official and public information on this right does hardly exist.
This shows that also within the European Union there is a need to act, in order to bring the law of the member and candidate countries of the European Union into compliance with international law. This is especially true regarding the right to conscientious objection for professional soldiers, an issue that is becoming increasingly important due to the trend to abolish or suspend conscription.
Conclusions
With the trend towards the professionalisation of the military in Europe, another development occurs mainly unnoticed: the right to conscientious objection, which has been widely recognised in the European Union, is being weakened. Generally, it is not available to professional soldiers. Also the implementation of the right to conscientious objection for conscripts in the different members and candidate countries does often not comply with international standards.
With the increased use of a professionalised military within the framework of NATO, the EU or the United Nations (or within ad-hoc coalitions), the right to conscientious objection is more important than ever for those soldiers who need it.
Notes
[1] Bart Horeman, Marc Stolwijk: Refusing to bear arms: a world survey of conscription and conscientious objection to military service. War Resisters' International, 1998, http://wri-irg.org/co?/rtba/index.html, accessed on 8 October 2008
[2] Quaker Council for European Affairs: The Right to Conscientious Objection in Europe: A Review of the Current Situation, April 2005, http://www.quaker.org/qcea/coreport/index.html, accessed on 8 October 2008
[3] http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm, accessed on 8 October 2008
[4] http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf, accessed on 8 October 2008
[5] Paragraph (2) reads: “The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.”, http://www.europarl.europa.eu?/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf, accessed on 8 October 2008
[6] UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1998/77, 'Conscientious Objection to Military Service', which has been reaffirmed in all subsequent UN Commission resolutions on this subject, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda?/Huridoca.nsf/0/5bc5759a53f36ab380256671004b643a?Opendocument, accessed 8 October 2008
[7] Communications Nos. 1321/2004 and 1322/2004 : Republic of Korea. 23/01/2007. CCPR/C/88/D/1321-1322/2004. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/26a8e9722d0cdadac1257279004c1b4e?Opendocument, accessed 8 October 2008
[8] UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1998/77, 'Conscientious Objection to Military Service', http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/5bc5759a53f36ab380256671004b643a?Opendocument, accessed 8 October 2008
[9] European Parliament: Resolution of 13 October 1989 on conscientious objection and alternative civilian service, http://ebco-beoc.org/page/1uside/document?/doc2eu.htm#Schmidbauer, accessed on 8 October 2008
[10] Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Human rights of members of the armed forces, Doc. 10861, 24 March 2006, http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents?/WorkingDocs/Doc06/EDOC10861.htm, accessed 8 October 2008
[11] Recommendation 1518 (2001), Exercise of the right of conscientious objection to military service in Council of Europe member states, Text adopted by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 23 May 2001, http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta01/EREC1518.HTM, accessed 8 October 2008
Add new comment