Denmark

Faroes islanders protest new NATO radar station

Andrew — Mon, 09 Aug 2021 13:32:30 +0000

09 Aug 2021

Author(s)

Lowana Veal

During the Cold War a radar station was operated by the US military, under the guise of NATO, on Sornfelli mountain, 12 km from the capital of the Faroe Islands, Tórshavn. The radar station was set up without the knowledge of the Faroese public: the Faroes are a Danish autonomous territory and the Danes had provided NATO and the US military with land to use as a military base in both Greenland and the Faroes, on the basis that they would then have to pay less dues to NATO. Most of the time the base and radar station were operated without consulting the Faroese islanders, who knew little about what was going on there.

There is strong anti-militarist support in the Faroes, and when NATO announced that they would close the radar station on 1 January 2007 – three months after the US closed their military base in Iceland – the Faroese rejoiced.

But in recent years the US and NATO have become increasingly interested in the North Atlantic waters, and the idea was mooted of re-establishing the radar base on Sornfelli, using new equipment. Earlier this year the Danish authorities said that they had come to an agreement with NATO on a radar station structure on Sornfelli.

The previous radar station on Sornfelli, closed in 2007.

Again, the Faroese islanders were not consulted and, not surprisingly, they reacted strongly. While some islanders blindly follow whatever Denmark and NATO want to do and others are prepared to have the military back again if the Faroese islanders are consulted, opinion surveys indicate that the majority of Faroese residents are completely against the military build-up in the Faroes. But the make-up of the Faroese parliament does not reflect the latter view, and indeed it is unclear if in fact they will have a say in the matter at all.

On July 21, the youth groups of the Faroese political parties opposing the radar station organized a demonstration, which was initially envisaged to be up on Sornfelli mountain itself but was then relocated to the capital, Tórshavn. The demonstration, which was attended by over 100 people, focused on the right to self-determination. Their message was clear: We make the decisions; Faroese politics will be governed from the Faroes; we own the radar; and we own the free space. That same evening, Icelandic anti-militarists staged a small demonstration of solidarity outside the Faroese embassy.

Besides the radar station, Denmark also announced in February that it would purchase two surveillance drones for Greenland – another Danish autonomous territory. Together with the radar station on Sornfelli, these would cover “blind spots” and improve Denmark’s surveillance capabilities in Greenland and the North Atlantic. The Danes are planning to spend 1.5 billion Danish kroner ($245 million, €200 million) on the military investments in Sornfelli and Greenland.

Author information

Programmes & Projects

Front Page WRI affiliate

Countries

Denmark United States of America

Institutions

North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO

Add new comment

Danish company Terma accused of violating UAE arms embargo

Andrew — Sat, 23 May 2020 13:19:58 +0000

23 May 2020

A Danish independent media and research centre has published a report accusing the country’s largest arms manufacturer, Terma, of war crimes after continuing to supply arms to the United Arab Emirates, despite a decision by Denmark to stop arming Saudi and the UAE because of their involvement in the war in Yemen. The report accuses the Danish authorities of being “asleep at the wheel” when considering Terma’s requests for export permits.

DanWatch used “satellite imagery, public access requests, intelligence reports, social media, export permits and dozens of interviews” to document the use of Terma radar and missile defence systems.

The report found that Terma continued to supply radar and missile defence systems which were later used in Yemen. Examples of such military equipment include the Scanter 2001, which was used on Emirari warships which regularly participated in the naval blockade, stopping carrying emergency aid from reaching the Yemeni coast. The naval blockade of Yemen has left ten million starving and 80% of the country dependent on aid. The report alleges that Terma continued to deliver spare parts until October 2019, and invited a team of Emirati radar technicians to participate in a training session at the company’s factory in Lystrup.

William Hartung, an expert in international arms trade and head of the American think tank Center for International Policy, is quoted in the report, arguing that “Without the radar systems, the Emirates warships are neither able to participate in the war in Yemen nor in the naval blockade.”

Other Terma equipment used by the UAE includes a defence system for the Archangel fighter aircraft. The aircraft are equipped with Terma’s MASE pods, a defense system mounted under the wings to protect aircraft from attack from the ground.

Programmes & Projects

War profiteer companies Front Page

Countries

Yemen Denmark United Arab Emirates

Theme

arms trade

Add new comment

Finland, Denmark and Netherlands announce arms to Saudi suspension

Andrew — Tue, 27 Nov 2018 09:37:40 +0000

Activists in the UK hold a protest against arms sales to Saudi. Photo: CAAT/Flickr

27 Nov 2018

Author(s)

Andrew Metheven

Germany has been joined by Finland, Netherlands, and Denmark in a suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The decisions follow the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and announcements by the United Nations that Yemen is experiencing the worst famine the world has seen for 100 years. Save the Children, using data compiled by the UN, has estimated that 85,000 children in Yemen may have died from starvation or disease since the war began in 2015. According to the research organisation Saferworld, Finland sold around $6m worth of arms to Saudi Arabia in 2017. Denmark's freeze includes military and surveillence equipment, and some "dual-use" technologies. Following the passing of a law banning arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the Dutch Foreign Secretary Stef Blok announced that he would be pushing for a similar ban by the United Nations.

In November the European Parliament called for further restrictions on European arms exports to Saudi Arabia. In a statement, the Parliament said: “Warships imported from EU countries are used to impose a blockade on Yemen, while aircraft and bombs are used in air raids that deepen the human tragedy.”

In mid-November, the US Senate rejected a resolution by Senator Rand Paul designed to stop a $300 million shipment of missiles and launchers from the USA to Bahrain. Bahrain is a member of the Saudi-led coalition, and in September the State Department announced it intended to sell 110 Army Tactical Missiles Systems (ATACMS) missiles along with 120 rocket pods. ATACMS is a 500lb-class guided missile with a 300km range, built by Lockheed Martin.

Author information

Programmes & Projects

War Profiteers Front Page

Countries

Finland Netherlands Denmark Saudi Arabia

Companies

Lockheed Martin

Add new comment

BAE Systems profiting from surveillance technology

Andrew — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:16:08 +0000

26 Jun 2017

Journalists in the UK and Denmark have uncovered evidence that BAE Systems – the UK's largest arms companies and one of the largest in the world – has profited from the sale of surveillance technology, including to many oppressive governments in the Middle East.

ETI, a Danish company bought by BAE Systems in 2011 for £137m, developed a system called Evident. Evident is capable of pinpointing an individuals location based on data from their mobile phone, decrypt encrypted messages, and had advanced voice recognition capabilities. Users of the technology could monitor a whole countries internet use, and filter websites, blogs, and social media by specific key words, such as the name of an opponent of the government. An anonymous source who used to work at ETI told the BBC “You would be able to intercept any internet traffic. If you wanted to do a whole country, go ahead. You would probably need something to narrow your search down, either by a specific person, a specific email address, specific IP address or specific keywords to search for.”

The BBC (UK) and the Dagbladet Information newspaper (Denmark) used freedom of information requests to reveal the technology had been exported to countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Oman, Morocco and Algeria. Many of these countries have questionable human rights records, including targetting pro-democracy activists during the Arab Spring uprisings, were mobile technology and social media played a key part in organising protests.

The BBC made clear that it's impossible to link the circumstances of particular activists, human rights activists and democracy campaigners have seen a huge impact of surveillance technology since the start of the Arab spring. The media group spoke to Yahya Assiri, a former Saudi air force officer who fled the country after posting pro-democracy statements online, who said "I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said more than 90% of the most active campaigners in 2011 have now vanished."

All of the sales of the Evident system were entirely legal, licensed for export under Danish government export licenses, issued by the Danish Business Authority.

Programmes & Projects

War Profiteers Nonviolence

Countries

United Arab Emirates Saudi Arabia Oman Qatar Denmark United Kingdom

Companies

BAE Systems

Add new comment

Denmark: Parliament examines compulsory defence day for women

warresisters — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:44:00 +0000

01 Jul 2009

Denmark's "Defence Commission", which has been set up in 2007 to provide direction to the government's 2010-14 National Defense Plan, advocates retaining conscription, but recommends a broad debate "into the future value" of conscription, so a report released in March 2009. The commission's report calls for defense spending be increased by 10 to 15 percent to accommodate a rapid expansion of Denmark's land forces and important equipment procurement programmes.
Three months later, the Danish parliament reached agreement on a major funding boost for the military. The issue of conscription was also discussed as part of the defence budget negotiations and parliament will further examine if all 18-year-old women should be forced to attend the military's draft board reviews in the same way as their male peers, so the Copenhagen Post in report published on 25 June.

Presently, the selection of conscripts is by balloting, as the number of young men available for military service is much greater than the number considered necessary by the Danish National Forces. Selection involves drawing lots during medical examination, which takes place during newly introduced “Danish Defence Days” (Forsvarets dag). The lots are actually not drawn by the conscripts themselves but by the military authorities.

There are more conscripts than the armed forces need. Therefore in practice only 30 to 50 percent of all liable conscripts are called up for military service. Most conscripts in the armed forces have volunteered to serve.

Sources: DefenseNews.com: Danish Commission Calls for Bigger Defense Budget, 16 April 2009; The Copenhagen Post: Defence forces get multi-billion kroner boost, 25 June 2009; War Resisters' International: Country report and updates: Denmark, 2008

Countries

Denmark

Theme

Conscientious objection

Add new comment

Conscientious objection: Legal practices and frameworks among EU member states

warresisters — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:15:20 +0000

15 Jan 2009

Presentation for the Subcommittee on Security and Defence of the European
Parliament

by Andreas Speck, Right to Refuse to Kill Programme, War Resisters' International

1. Introduction

In this presentation I
will give an overview of the right to conscientious objection, its
legal practices and frameworks in the 27 European Union member
states. Before I do so, I want to step back a bit and have a brief
look at the existing international standards about the right to
conscientious objection, as these standards allow us to put the
practices in the EU member states into a perspective.

► Conscientious objection as a right

It is now accepted that
the right to conscientious objection is protected under the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 18 International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9 of the European
Convention of Human Rights), and seen as a legitimate exercise of
this right¹.
The former United Nations Commission on Human Rights has reiterated
this right in several resolutions since 1987².
If there have been any doubts in the past, then the decision of the
United Nations Human Rights Committee from January 2007 on two
individual complaints from South Korea certainly clarified the
issue³.
Subsequently, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention classified any imprisonment of a conscientious objector
as a form of arbitrary detention⁴,
while previously it only saw the second and any subsequent
imprisonment as arbitrary detention.

It is important to note
that article 18(1) of the Covenant, which covers both the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to manifest it, is
non-derogable even during times of national emergency threatening the
life of the nation.

While there has been
some jurisprudence at the level of the United Nations Human Rights
Committee, the European Court of Human Rights has so far
shied away from ruling on the question whether article 9 of the
European Convention of Human Rights includes the right to
conscientious objection⁵.
It is hard to imagine that following the Human Rights Committee
decision from 23 January 2007, the ECHR would not rule in a similar
manner to the Human Rights Committee in a future case.

Although the right to
conscientious objection is derived from the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion, it is clear that it is not limited
to religious convictions. According to the Human Rights Committee's
General Comment No 22, “article 18 protects theistic,
non-theistic and atheistic beliefs”. In fact, the Human Rights
Committee repeatedly recommended to States in its Concluding
Observations “extend the right of conscientious objection
against mandatory military service to persons who hold non-religious
beliefs grounded in conscience”⁶.

The question of
“selective” conscientious objection, not to war in general but to
a particular war, has not been dealt with very much. However, the
United Nations General Assembly, in its resolution 33/165 from 20
December 1978, recognised “the right of all persons to refuse
service in military or police forces which are used to enforce
apartheid”⁷.

It is also important to
note that it is not allowed to exclude groups of people from the
right to conscientious objection, for example for having a gun
license or other reasons.

► Right to conscientious objection at any time – before, during and after
service

Another important
aspect is when an application for conscientious objection can be
made. The general freedom to change one's religion or belief is
recognised in Article 18(1) of the Covenant. Thus, the Human Rights
Committee recognised in its Concluding Observations on Chile, that
“conscientious objection can occur at any time, even when
a person’s military service has already begun”⁸.
The Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1998/77 highlighted
“that persons performing military service may develop
conscientious objections”⁹.
The European Parliament, in its resolution from 13 October 1989,
called “for the right to be granted to all conscripts at any
time to refuse military service, whether armed or unarmed, on grounds
of conscience”¹⁰.
In its 1994 resolution, the European Parliament explicitly called “on
the Member States of the European Union which do not have (or no
longer have) conscription and military and civilian service
nevertheless to guarantee the fundamental right of conscientious
objection”¹¹.

Council of Europe
Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1518 (2001) explicitly
recognised “the right to be registered as a conscientious
objector at any time: before, during or after conscription, or
performance of military service” and “the right for
permanent members of the armed forces to apply for the granting of
conscientious objector status”¹².
The Parliamentary Assembly also 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”¹³.

► Impartial decision making procedure

The United Nations
Commission on Human Rights has welcomed “the fact that some
States accept claims of conscientious objection as valid without
inquiry”, and called for “independent and impartial
decision-making bodies” where this is not the case¹⁴.
More concretely, it has expressed its concern that “the
assessment of applications for such service is solely under the
control of the Ministry of Defence”. It therefore recommended
“placing the assessment of applications for conscientious
objector status under the control of civilian authorities”¹⁵.

► Non-punitive substitute service

It first has to be
noted that there does not have to be a substitute service. However,
if a state decides to require a substitute service from conscientious
objectors, then this substitute service has to be compatible with the
reasons for the conscientious objection, of civilian character, in
the public interest and not of a punitive nature. The term “punitive”
covers not only the duration of substitute service, but also the type
of service and the conditions under which it is served.

In terms of length of
substitute service, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has
made clear in Foin v. France that any difference in length
must be “based on reasonable and objective criteria, such as the
nature of the specific service concerned, or the need for a special
training in order to accomplish that service”¹⁶.
This means that any general difference in length, as is the practice
in many countries, is not permitted.

► Provision of information

It
is obvious that the provision of information about a right is crucial
for people to make use of that right. Therefore, the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights affirmed in its resolution 1998/77 “the
importance of the availability of information about the right to
conscientious objection to military service, and the means of
acquiring conscientious objector status, to all persons affected by
military service”¹⁷.

Council
of Europe Recommendation No. R (87) 8 says that “persons liable
to conscription shall be informed in advance of their rights. For
this purpose, the state shall provide them with all relevant
information directly or allow private organizations concerned to
furnish that information”¹⁸.

2. Practice in European Union member states

From the 27 European
Union member states, 10 presently maintain conscription, although of
these two – Poland and Sweden – are presently in the process of
suspending conscription. However, most countries that did have
conscription in the recent past did not just abolish it, but mainly
suspended to enforce conscription. In most cases these countries
maintain laws and regulations which allow to enforce conscription
under certain circumstances, i.e. in situations of war or an
emergency.

Presently, all
countries of the European Union that maintain conscription do provide
for the right to conscientious objection in some form. However, this
does not mean that this would comply with the international standards
set out in the introduction.

Table 1: Overview:
conscription and the right to conscientious objection in the European
Union

Country	Conscription	CO for conscripts		CO for professional soldiers
Country	Conscription	before military service	during and after military service	CO for professional soldiers
Austria	Yes	Yes	No	No
Belgium	Suspended	Yes	No	No
Bulgaria	Suspended	Yes	No	No
Cyprus	Yes	Yes	No	No
Czech Republic	Suspended	Yes	No	No
Denmark	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Estonia	Yes	Yes	No	No
Finland	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
France	Suspended	Yes		No
Germany	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Greece	Yes	Yes	No	No
Hungary	Suspended	Yes	No	No
Ireland	No	n.a.	n.a.	No
Italy	Suspended	Yes		No
Latvia	Suspended	Yes		No
Lithuania	Yes	Yes	No	No
Luxembourg	No	n.a.	n.a.	No
Malta	No	n.a.	n.a.	No
Netherlands	Suspended	Yes	Yes	Yes
Poland	Yes	Yes	No	No
Portugal	No	n.a.	n.a.	No
Romania	No	n.a.	n.a.	No
Slovakia	Suspended	Yes	No	No
Slovenia	No	n.a.	n.a.	No
Spain	Suspended	Yes		No
Sweden	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
United Kingdom	No	n.a.	n.a.	Yes

War Resisters' International 2008

A more detailed look is
provided in Table 2. However, in some cases, the details as
prescribed by law are not known.

In several EU Member
States not everyone has a right to conscientious objection. In some
countries, such as Greece, certain groups cannot apply for
conscientious objector status. In Greece, anyone having a gun license
or with a criminal record cannot apply for conscientious objection.
In Estonia, the situation is a bit unclear, but the wording of the
law makes it likely that conscientious objection is only recognised
for religious reasons. The same applies for Lithuania.

In Poland, the right to
conscientious objection is only available in times of peace.

In many countries, the
right to conscientious objection is not available at any time. As
Table 1 shows, this right is often not available during or after
military service. Often, there are strict time limits for the
submission of an application for conscientious objection, which again
limits this right.

Table 2: Practice right to conscientious objection in countries
which enforce conscription

	Right to CO	At any time?	Impartial decision making	Substitute service	Other
Austria	✔		✔		Problem of low payments for CO in substitute service
Cyprus	?			
Denmark	✔	✔	✔	✔
Estonia	?				Not clear whether substitute service is genuinely civilian
Finland	✔	✔			Imprisonment of total objectors
Germany	✔	✔	✔	✔	Repeated disciplinary punishment of total objectors
Greece					Especially problems with old cases (Lazaros Petromelidis)
Lithuania	?			
*Poland )**	✔ ()			
Sweden )**	✔	✔	✔	-	Presently no substitute service
*) Conscription will be suspended in 2009
**) Conscription under review, likely to be suspended

War
Resisters' International, 2009

The decision making
procedure is another issue of concern. In many countries, an
application will be decided by the Ministry of Defence or some
administration under the Ministry of Defence. While in Finland for
example all applications are more or less automatically granted
without examination, and therefore it does not create a problem, in
countries where there is some examination of the reasons given for
conscientious objection, this is much more problematic. In Greece,
non-religious conscientious objectors for example have difficulties
getting recognised by the Ministry of Defence. In Poland, the rate of
accepted CO applications is low, compared to other countries. Only
about 60% of CO applications are granted¹⁹.

Problematic is
especially the issue of substitute service for conscientious
objectors. In most countries – with the exception of Denmark and
Germany – substitute service is longer than military service,
sometimes considerably longer. The European Committee on Social
Rights complained about the length of substitute service in the cases
of Cyprus²⁰,
Estonia²¹,
Greece²²,
and Finland²³.
Also the United Nations Human Rights Committee has repeatedly
complained about the length of substitute service²⁴.

While the Euopean
Committee for Social Rights considers a substitute service of 1.5
times the length of military service as in compliance with the
European Social Charta, the United Nations Human Rights Committee
also considers a substitute service of 1.5 times the length of
military service as punitive in length²⁵.

In some European Union
Member states conscientious objectors face prosecution and
imprisonment. In the case of Greece, this is especially case for some
cases of conscientious objectors going back to the time before Greece
introduced the right to conscientious objection (i.e. the case of
Lazaros Petromelidis²⁶),
or for conscientious objectors who are not recognised.

In Finland, total
objectors, who refuse substitute service for a variety of reasons,
among them often the punitive length of substitute service, are
routinely imprisoned for half the time they would have had to serve.
According to the Union of COs Finland, there are about 60-80 cases
every year.

In Germany, total
objectors face repeated disciplinary punishment by the military
authorities, often 3-4 terms of imprisonment up to a total of 63
days. According to a decree of the Ministry of Defence from 21 April
2008²⁷,
total objectors should not be released from the military before they
have not served at least two arrests of 21 days each. This decree is
a clear violation of Article 14, paragraph 7 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits the repeated
punishment for the same offence²⁸.

3. Conscientious objection for professional
soldiers

As stated in the
overview, only three European Union Member states – Germany, the
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom – recognise the right to
conscientious objection for professional soldiers.

Countries without the right to conscientious
objection for professional soldiers

In countries where
professional soldiers do not have the right to conscientious
objection, it is likely that those wishing to leave the Armed Forces
for reasons of conscience might seek other ways to get a discharge.
However, these other ways rarely constitute a right to be discharged,
especially in situations of war or an emergency.

The Greek case of
Giorgios Monastiriotis²⁹,
who initially signed up to the Greek navy on a five year contract,
highlights the problems. In May 2003 Giorgos Monstaritiotis
refused to embark with the crew of the battleship "Navarino"
on a mission to the Persian Gulf. He declared his immediate
resignation from the Navy instead. The Navarino was sailing to the
Persian Gulf as part of operation "Enduring Freedom".
Giorgos Monastiriotis gave the following statement prior to
his refusal in May 2003: "Acting on the basis of my
conscience, I refuse to take part or contribute by any means in the
relentless slaughter of the Iraqi people. I refuse to take part in a
war that is not ended, as even now after its official end people and
among them many children are being killed. Even if this war is
officially finished, many more are to come, as war is necessary for
the expansion of the dominance of the ruling powers. I declare my
immediate resignation from the Hellenic Navy, which is a mechanism
that promotes inhuman practices through orders and hierarchy and acts
as a means of extortion and repression of the movement and the
uprisings of the people. My refusal is also the minimal act of
solidarity due to the Iraqi people and to the peaceful sentiments of
the Greek people."

As Greece does not
recognise the right to conscientious objection for professional
soldiers, Giorgios Monastiriotis had no other options than to
simply declare his conscientious objection. What followed were
several trials and prison sentences, and also new call-ups to
military service³⁰.
Giorgios Monastiriotis has been sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment,
suspended for three years, on 31 October 2006, and even today has
still an open case for desertion, following a third call-up to
military service³¹.

The situation is
slightly different in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United
Kingdom, the three countries that recognise the right to
conscientious objection for professional soldiers. However, in these
countries too the situation is not without problems.

Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the
legal basis for the right to conscientious objection for professional
soldiers is only a decree of the Ministry of Defence from 1 January
1994³²,
which extends the law on conscientious objection, which only applies
to conscripts, also to professional soldiers. It is important to note
that according to the Ministry of Defence in 2004, professional
soldiers who have a conscientious objection to particular campaigns
of the armed forces, for example deployment in Iraq, do not have the
right to claim conscientious objection to participation in these
particular campaigns³³.

In practice, there have
been several trials against soldiers refusing to deploy to
Afghanistan. In 2007 the appeal court in Arnhem acquitted a soldier
who refused to deploy to Afghanistan, after he had initially been
sentenced to two months imprisonment. There was also a second case of
refusal, which lead to a prosecution. However, a second person has
also been finally acquitted in December 2007³⁴.

Presently, War
Resisters' International is not aware of any statistics on the number
of applications for a discharge as conscientious objector in the
Netherlands.

Germany

In Germany, the right
to conscientious objection applies equally to conscripts and
professional soldiers.

Table 3:
Conscientious objection – applications from soldiers since 2001

	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Conscripts /voluntary military service	2386	2242	1669	1861	1568	2203
Contract soldiers	62	79	71	73	70	65
Professional soldiers	0	1	0	2	1	1
Total	2448	2322	1740	1936	1639	2269

Source:
Antwort des Parlamentarischen Staatssekretärs Thomas Kossendey, 9
May 2007³⁵

Problematic
is especially that the military authorities regard a release from the
armed forces which is based on conscientious objection as a release
on someone's own initiative. This means that a professional soldier
who has been recognised as a conscientious objector needs to pay back
the costs of any courses that (s)he has followed in the military and
that have a civilian use. This can lead to a considerable financial
burden, almost making it impossible to leave the Armed Forces.

The case of
Florian Pfaff highlighted another problem with the right to
conscientious objection. However, as Florian Pfaff did not claim
conscientious objection, but refused an order that he regarded as
illegal, his case falls more under the category of the right to
refuse illegal orders. In its judgement, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
however acquitted Florian Pfaff based on freedom of conscience. The
Bundesverwaltungsgericht stated in its judgement: “A soldier
does not have to carry out an order, on the ground that it is
unreasonable, if he can invoke protection of the fundamental right to
freedom of conscience (Article 4(1) of the Basic Law). The protection
afforded by Article 4(1) of the Basic Law is not overridden by the
fundamental right to recognition as a conscientious objector (Article
4(3) of the Basic Law).” And: “If (...) the soldier still
maintains that his conscience will not allow him to carry out the
order, and if this is understandable in the sense described earlier,
then a compromise must be reached which protects both sides (use
elsewhere, transfer, reassignment, etc.).”³⁶

United Kingdom

In the
United Kingdom, each of the three branches of the Armed Forces has
its own regulations governing the right to conscientious objection.
Especially problematic is that the regulations governing the right to
conscientious objection are not in the public domain, and information
is difficult to obtain by members of the public, and also by members
of the Armed Forces. In addition, decision making on an application
for conscientious objection in the first instance is by the
respective branch of the Armed Forces itself, and not by an
independent body. Only the appeal body – the Advisory Committee on
Conscientious Objectors – is an independent body.

The
regulations are:

Instruction
006 – Retirement or Discharge on Grounds of Conscience for the
Army, including the Territorial Army;
AP3392
Vol 5. Leaflet 113, Procedure for Dealing with Conscientious
Objectors within the Royal Air Force for the Air Force;
Personnel,
Legal, Administrative and General Orders 0801, Application for
Discharge on Grounds of Conscientious Objection for the Navy.

While the
application procedure is similar for the three branches of the Armed
Forces, there are also important differences.

It has to be
pointed out that for all three services an application for discharge
on grounds of conscience does not prevent deployment. During the time
the application is being processed, the applicant remains a member of
the Armed Forces with all duties this implies. There is no right to
ask for service without arms during the processing of the CO
application.

The
regulations for the Royal Air Force also do not allow an application
for conscientious objection from a soldier who is absent without
leave or a deserter, or subject of outstanding disciplinary action.
This is problematic as it is not uncommon for conscientious objectors
to go absent without leave for a short period, as especially
experience from the United States of America shows.

There are
very few cases of conscientious objection in the UK Armed Forces³⁷.
One explanation for this is the lack of information. This lack of
access to and knowledge about the right to conscientious objection
has also been an issue in the case of reservist Leading Aircraftsman
Mohisin Khan, who went absent without leave when recalled for
service. He claimed that he was not aware of the right to
conscientious objection. In its judgement, the High Court says “It
is, however, true that the call-out materials in this case, like the
1997 Regulations, do not mention conscientious objection expressly.
In that respect, it would seem that the information provided to the
recalled reservist could be improved”³⁸.

According to
military law expert Gilbert Blades, who represents soldiers at courts
martial, the numbers leaving because of Iraq are often obscured as
they were not counted as conscientious objectors³⁹.

Two
high-profile cases of Iraq war resisters underline this point.
Benjamin Griffin, a former SAS soldier, refused to return to Iraq
while on leave in March 2005 after three month of service in Baghdad.
Unexpectedly, he was discharged from the army “with a glowing
testimonial”⁴⁰.

Malcolm
Kendall-Smith, a medical officer in the Royal Air Force, fared less
well. He refused to serve in Iraq in July 2005, and was subsequently
court-martialed, and sentenced to eight month imprisonment, plus a
discharge from the Air Force⁴¹.

Both cases
are again on the borderline to the right to refuse illegal orders.

4. Conclusions

While all European Union Member states that
practice conscription recognise the right to conscientious objection
for conscripts, the implementation of this right is in most cases not
compliant with the international standards as set out by United
Nations bodies, the Council of Europe, and the European Parliament.

Only very few countries accept an application for
conscientious objection at any time – before, during and after
military service – and in many cases the decision making procedure
is not impartial. Also, in many cases the substitute service is of
punitive length.

Regarding the right to conscientious objection for
professional soldiers, the situation is even worse. Only three out of
the 27 European Union Member states recognise the right to
conscientious objection for professional soldiers. Also in these
three countries, there are still a range of problems in practice.

1Human
Rights Committee: General Comment 22 on Article 18, 30 June 1993,
http://wri-irg.org/node/6410

2See
for example Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1987/73
from 5 March 1987, 1989/59 from 8 March 1989
(http://wri-irg.org/node/6409),
1998/77 from 22 April 1998 (http://wri-irg.org/node/6136),
2000/34 from 20 April 2000 (http://wri-irg.org/node/6418),
2002/45 from 23 April 2002 (http://wri-irg.org/node/6415),
and 2004/35 from 19 April 2004 (http://wri-irg.org/node/6412)

3Mr.
Yeo-Bum Yoon and Mr. Myung-Jin Choi vs Republic of Korea,
Communications Nos. 1321/2004 and 1322/2004 : Republic of Korea.
23/01/2007. CCPR/C/88/D/1321-1322/2004. (Jurisprudence),
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/26a8e9722d0cdadac1257279004c1b4e?Opendocument

4OPINION
No.8/2008 (Colombia), 9 May 2008,
http://wri-irg.org/news/2008/colombia-opinion-es.htm,
Opinion No. 16/2008 (Turkey), 8 May 2008,
http://wri-irg.org/node/272

5In
its judgement in the case Ülke
v. Turkey (39437/98) from 26
January 2006, the court ruled in favour of Ülke
on the grounds of article 3 of the European Convention. However,
regarding a violation of article 9, the court said in its judgement
“that it is not necessary
to give a separate ruling on the complaints under Articles 5, 8 and
9 of the Convention” (see
http://wri-irg.org/node/615).

6Human
Rights Committee, Concluding observations of the Human Rights
Committee: UKRAINE, 28 November 2006,
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/458/07/PDF/G0645807.pdf?OpenElement,
accessed 8 January 2009

7Status
of persons refusing service in military or police forces used to
enforce apartheid, United Nations General Assembly resolution 33/165
from 20 December 1978, http://wri-irg.org/node/6428

8Human
Rights Committee: Concluding observations of the Human Rights
Committee: CHILE, 18 May 2007, http://wri-irg.org/node/6429

9Commission
on Human Rights: Conscientious objection to military service
(Resolution 1998/77), 22 April 1998, http://wri-irg.org/node/6136

10European
Parliament: Resolution on conscientious objection and alternative
civilian service (Schmidbauer Resolution), 13 October 1989,
http://wri-irg.org/node/6376

11European
Parliament: Resolution on conscientious objection in the Member
States of the Community (Bandrés Molet & Bindi Resolution), 19
June 1994, http://wri-irg.org/node/6375

12Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe: Recommendation 1518 (2001), 23
May 2001, http://wri-irg.org/node/6379

13Parliamentary
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 9 January 2009

14United
Nations Commission on Human Rights: Resolution 1998/77 from 22 April
1998, http://wri-irg.org/node/6136

15Concluding
observations of the Human Rights Committee: GREECE, 25 April 2005,
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CCPR.CO.83.GRC.En?OpenDocument

16Frédéric
Foin v. France, CCPR/C/67/D/666/1995, 9 November 1999,
http://wri-irg.org/node/6140

17Commission
on Human Rights: Conscientious objection to military service
(Resolution 1998/77), 22 April 1998, http://wri-irg.org/node/6136

18Recommendation
No. R(87)8 of the Committee of Ministers to member states regarding
conscientious objection to compulsory military service, 9 April
1997, http://wri-irg.org/node/6378

19The
Right to Conscientious Objection in Europe, Quaker Council for
European Affairs, 2005,
http://wri-irg.org/node/4302/revisions/4372/view

20European
Committee of Social Rights: Conclusions 2008 – Volume 1 (Albania,
Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia,
Finland, France, Georgia, Ireland, Italy),
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/Year/2008Vol1_en.pdf

21European
Committee of Social Rights: Conclusions 2008 – Volume 1 (Albania,
Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia,
Finland, France, Georgia, Ireland, Italy),
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/Year/2008Vol1_en.pdf

22European
Committee of Social Rights: Conclusions XVIII-1 (Greece), Articles
1, 12, 13, 16 and 19 of the Charter, 2006,
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/State/GreeceXVIII1_en.pdf

23European
Committee of Social Rights: Conclusions 2008 – Volume 1 (Albania,
Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia,
Finland, France, Georgia, Ireland, Italy),
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/Year/2008Vol1_en.pdf

24See
for example: Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee:
LITHUANIA, 4 May 2004, http://wri-irg.org/node/6473;
Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: FINLAND, 2
December 2004,
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/449/95/PDF/G0444995.pdf?OpenElement;
Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: POLAND, 2

December 2004,
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/450/09/PDF/G0445009.pdf?OpenElement

25Concluding
observations of the Human Rights Committee: POLAND, 2 December 2004,
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/450/09/PDF/G0445009.pdf?OpenElement

26For
an overview of the case, see http://wri-irg.org/node/4053.

27Vorzeitige
Entlassung von Grundwehrdienstleistenden (GWDL)/freiwilligen
zusätzlichen Wehrdienst Leistenden (FWDL) gemäß § 29 Abs. 1 Satz
3 Nr. 5 und Abs. 4 Nr. 2 des Wehrpflichtgesetzes,
http://www.kampagne.de/Recht/Dokumente/TKDV_Erlass.php,
accessed 14 January 2009

28See
also Human Rights Committee: General Comment 32 on Article 14,
CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007,
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/437/71/PDF/G0743771.pdf?OpenElement;
United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: OPINION No.
24/2003 (ISRAEL), 28 November 2003, http://wri-irg.org/node/6481,
OPINION No. 36/1999 (TURKEY), 2 December 1999,
http://wri-irg.org/node/1600

29An
overview of the case is available at http://wri-irg.org/node/5017

30War
Resisters' International: Conscientious objection to military
service in Greece: Human Rights shortfalls, 1 February 2005,
http://wri-irg.org/news/2005/greece05a-en.htm

31Emails
Alexia Tsouni, Association of Greek Conscientious Objectors, 15
January 2009

32Aanwijzing
inzake Gewetensbezwaren militaire dienst, 1 January 1994,
http://mpbundels.mindef.nl/31_serie/31_112/31_112_1150.htm,
accessed 15 January 2009

33Information
provided by the Netherlands Ministry of Defence, November 2004,
referenced in Quaker Council for European Affairs: The Right to
Conscientious Objection in Europe, 2005,
http://wri-irg.org/co/rtba/netherlands.htm,
accessed 11 August 2008.

34War
Resisters' International: World Survey Conscientious Objection and
Recruitment, Netherlands, 23 October 2008,
http://wri-irg.org/programmes/world_survey/reports/Netherlands

35Antwort
des Parlamentarischen Staatssekretärs Thomas Kossendey, 9 May 2007:
Kriegsdienstverweigerung – Antragstellungen von Soldaten seit 2001
nach Statusgruppen und insgesamt,
http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/053/1605317.pdf,
accessed 15 January 2009

36Notes
on the acquittal of a German military officer who refused to carry
out a military order in connection with the Iraq War,
http://wri-irg.org/news/2006/pfaff-en.htm

37Numbers
have been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by War
Resisters' International, and also by the Quakers. However, these
numbers do not add up. According to the information obtained by War
Resisters' International, only six individuals (3 RAF personnel, 3
Navy personnel) have applied for discharge on the grounds of
conscientious objection since 2000. Of these cases, five were
successful (3 RAF personnel, 2 Navy personnel). It is interesting
that according to information obtained by David Gee in March 2007,
from April 2001 to March 2006 there had been four successful
applications, all from Air Force personnel, and none for the Navy or
Army.

38Mohisin
Khan v RAF, [2004] EWHC (2230), paragraph 57,
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2822/khan-v-raf.htm

39At
least 1,000 UK soldiers desert, BBC News, 28 May 2006,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5024104.stm,
accessed 1 October 2008

40SAS
man quits in protest at 'illegal' Iraq war, The Guardian, 13 March
2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1729553,00.html,
accessed 1 October 2008

41RAF
doctor jailed over Iraq refusal, The Guardian, 13 April 2006,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1753241,00.html,
accessed 1 October 2008

Attached file

PresentationSEDE22012009.pdf221.03 KB

Programmes & Projects

Right to Refuse to Kill

Countries

United Kingdom Sweden Spain (State of) Slovenia Slovakia Romania Portugal Poland Netherlands Malta Luxembourg Lithuania Liechtenstein Latvia Italy Ireland Hungary Greece Germany France Finland Estonia Denmark Czech Republic Cyprus Bulgaria Belgium Austria

Theme

Conscientious objection

Institutions

European Union (EU)

Add new comment

Denmark

warresisters — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0000

23 Oct 2008

Issues

Denmark still maintains conscription. The right to conscientious objection
is not recognised for professional soldiers.

Military recruitment

Conscription

Conscription is enshrined in art. 81 of the 1953 Constitution, which states: "All men able to bear arms are under the obligation (...) to the defence of the nation"¹.
The present basis of conscription is the 2006 National Service Law (Værnepligtsloven)².

The length of military service is between 3 days and 14 months, depending on the branch of the armed forces and the rank attained. Most conscripts perform a 4 months' military service.

All men between the ages of 18 and 30 are liable for military service. The National Service Law does not cover the self-governing territories of the Faroe Islands and Greenland. If a young man moves to mainland Denmark after living in one of those territories for ten years or more, he is not liable for military service.

The selection of conscripts is by balloting, as the number of young men available for military service is much greater than the number considered necessary by the Danish National Forces. Selection involves drawing lots during medical examination, which takes place during newly introduced “Danish Defence Days” (Forsvarets dag). The lots are actually not drawn by the conscripts themselves but by the military authorities. Apparently this is because once somebody ate his lot ticket, which meant they had to suspend the draft that day in order to find out which lot
number had been eaten.

The lot numbers range from 1 to 35,000. Firstly, conscripts who have applied to serve voluntarily are drafted, whatever lot number they might have. From the remaining conscripts only those with the lowest numbers are drafted, until the necessary amount is reached. Therefore it takes some months, before conscripts are told whether or not they must serve. Conscripts drawing a 'blank' are not called up but transferred to a reservist-category liable to be called up in wartime.

Voluntary applications for military service can be made from the age of 17 when the person has special reasons to do so, for example for reasons of education.

Professional soldiers

The newly introduced “Danish Defence Days” are not only important for the recruitment of
conscripts, they are also a tool to attract professional soldiers. At those days (which are also open for women), all men and women declared suitable for military service receive a presentation on
Danish Defence and the emergency management services. The presentation comprises information about military service, employment and career opportunities and response force contracts, etc. After the presentation those found suitable or partly suitable for military service may, if they so wish, conclude an agreement on military service and employment following individual guidance⁴.

Conscientious objection

Conscientious objection for conscripts

The right to conscientious objection has been legally recognised since 1917. Its present legal basis is laid down in the 2006 National Service Law and the 2006 Civil Service Act (Militærnægterloven, 226/2006)⁵. Art. 1 of the Civil Service Act states: "Conscripts for whom military service in any form is judged, from available information, to be incompatible with the dictates of their conscience, may (...) be exempted from military service on condition that they are engaged in other national work, which is not, however, serving any military purpose."

Procedure

Written applications must be made to the conscientious objection administration board of the Ministry of the Interior within four weeks of receipt of call-up papers. According to the government, all kinds of reasons of conscience (religious, ethical) are acceptable but applications based solely on political grounds are not to be granted.

There are no individual examinations of applications and in practice almost all applications are granted, provided the word conscience is mentioned. CO groups have evolved a standard formula that is said to be generally acceptable to the authorities.

Applications can be made while serving, in which case the application needs to be more elaborate and should include an explanation as to when and where the applicant's conflict of conscience took place.

Conscientious objection for professional soldiers

The Civil Service Act only applies to conscripts, and not to soldiers who joined the Armed Forces
voluntarily. According to information provided by the Royal Danish Embassy, professional soldiers do always have the right to resign, albeit with three months notice⁶.
However, certain trainings within the Armed Forces require the soldier to sign a “duty to serve” contract, the length of which depends on the duration of the training. In case a soldier wants to
resign prematurely before the end of his/her contract, this might lead to repayment of training expenses.

Draft evasion and desertion

penalties

Draft evasion and desertion are punishable under the Military Penal Code, but COs are not subject to its provisions.

Desertion is punishable according to Article xx of the Military Penal Code (Militærstraffelov)⁷.

Refusal to perform substitute service is punishable by a fine and up to a year's imprisonment under art. 6 of the 2006 Civil Service Act. The length of imprisonment is equivalent to the length of time that should have been served.

total objection

Up to the mid-1990s, every year about 25 people refuse to perform both military and substitute service, all of them Jehovah's Witnesses. They were normally twice sentenced to a fine. After a third refusal they were sentenced to imprisonment to the length of time that they should have served. This normally meant six months' imprisonment, as the judges considered them to refuse to perform the shortest possible service. In practice total objectors were usually released when they had served half the prison sentence. Then, as a rule, they were expected to hand over DKK 9,000 to cover costs of board and lodging while in prison⁸.

More recent cases of total objection are presently not known.

Notes

1UN
Commission on Human Rights, 1994. Report of the Secretary-General
prepared pursuant to Commission resolution 1993/84 (and Addendum).
United Nations, Geneva.

2Bekendtgørelse
af værnepligtsloven, LBK nr 225 af 13/03/2006 Gældende,
https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=6463

3Reports
by Militaernaegterforeningen 1987, 1992-97.

4Consolidated
implementation basis for “Danish Defence Agreement 2005 – 2009”,
http://forsvaret.dk/NR/rdonlyres/BD0DB719-4F0F-41A4-AEDB-4F28C602FCE0/0/20050318Implementeringsnotatet6.pdf

5Bekendtgørelse
af lov om værnepligtens opfyldelse ved civilt arbejde, LBK nr 226
af 13/03/2006, http://www.militaernaegter.dk/sw164.asp

6Royal
Danish Embassy: The right to conscientious objection. 13.DAN.2, 14
March 2008

7 https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=6435

8Maeland,
Henry John 1993. Accommodation of Conscience - The Scandinavian
Experience.

Attached file

Rrtk-update-2008-denmark.pdf170.16 KB

Countries

Denmark

Theme

Conscientious objection

Denmark

Faroes islanders protest new NATO radar station

Add new comment

Danish company Terma accused of violating UAE arms embargo

Add new comment

Finland, Denmark and Netherlands announce arms to Saudi suspension

Add new comment

BAE Systems profiting from surveillance technology

Add new comment

Denmark: Parliament examines compulsory defence day for women

Add new comment

Conscientious objection: Legal practices and frameworks among EU member states

Presentation for the Subcommittee on Security and Defence of the European Parliament

1. Introduction

► Conscientious objection as a right

► Right to conscientious objection at any time – before, during and after service

► Impartial decision making procedure

► Non-punitive substitute service

► Provision of information

2. Practice in European Union member states

3. Conscientious objection for professional soldiers

Countries without the right to conscientious objection for professional soldiers

Netherlands

Germany

United Kingdom

4. Conclusions

Add new comment

Denmark

Issues

Military recruitment

Conscription

Professional soldiers

Conscientious objection

Conscientious objection for conscripts

Procedure

Conscientious objection for professional soldiers

Draft evasion and desertion

penalties

total objection

Notes

Add new comment

Presentation for the Subcommittee on Security and Defence of the European
Parliament

► Right to conscientious objection at any time – before, during and after
service

3. Conscientious objection for professional
soldiers

Countries without the right to conscientious
objection for professional soldiers