Selective conscientious objection is the practice of refusing some, but not all, military service. It is much more controversial than blanket conscientious objection based on consistent pacifism. [1] Views on selective conscientious objection range from being morally impermissible, morally permissible, a right that may be exercised, or morally obligatory in the case of military personnel asked to fight an illegal war of aggression. [2]
The traditional view is that soldiers are obligated to obey superior orders to participate in a war, even when this is against their conscience. [1] The moral culpability for fighting an unjust war, in this view, is visited entirely on the leaders and not on ordinary soldiers who are entirely innocent (see moral equality of combatants). [1] [3] Arguments for this view include those based on social contract theory which posit that citizens should obey their state's decision to go to war, the argument that individual soldiers are ill-placed to determine whether a war is just. [1]
In 1539, Francisco de Vitoria argued:
If the war seems patently unjust to the subject, he must not fight, even if he is ordered to do so by the prince. This is obvious, since one may not lawfully kill an innocent man on any authority, and in the case we are speaking of the enemy must be innocent. . . if their conscience tells subjects that the war is unjust, they must not go to war even if this conscience is wrong. [1]
Those who reject the moral equality of combatants regardless of whether they are fighting for a just or unjust cause argue that individual soldiers have an obligation to refuse to fight an unjust war if they can do so without suffering death or other grave harms. [4] John Rawls argues that selective objection should be allowed as it may prevent the government from continuing an unjust war. [5]
During the first several years of the United States participation in the Vietnam War, selective conscientious objection based on just war theory was widespread among Catholic war resisters as well as Jews, nonreligious men, and those of other faiths. Despite its strong grassroots support, selective conscientious objection was unacceptable to the state as it was feared that allowing conscripts to pick and choose what wars they would fight in would undermine national defense. [6] During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, some leaders including the president of Ukraine and president of Estonia argued that Russian soldiers should selectively object to the invasion. [7] Many Israelis who refuse to serve in the IDF are selective conscientious objectors who criticize certain actions such as the invasion of Lebanon or occupation of the West Bank as immoral or illegal. [5]
Legally, courts in most countries have distinguished between blanket objection and selective objection, allowing only the former. [1] [5] Soldiers have a right and a responsibility to refuse to commit war crimes, but the right to refuse to fight an illegal war is not widely recognized. [8] In the United States, the 1971 Gillette v. United States found that to be recognized as a conscientious objector, one must refuse all wars. [9] International law scholar Tom Dannenbaum argues that soldiers should have a right not to fight in illegal wars, and those who refuse to should be recognized as refugees. [10]
Pacifism is the opposition or resistance to war, militarism or violence. The word pacifism was coined by the French peace campaigner Émile Arnaud and adopted by other peace activists at the tenth Universal Peace Congress in Glasgow in 1901. A related term is ahimsa, which is a core philosophy in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. While modern connotations are recent, having been explicated since the 19th century, ancient references abound.
A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion. The term has also been extended to objecting to working for the military–industrial complex due to a crisis of conscience. In some countries, conscientious objectors are assigned to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service.
The just war theory is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics that aims to ensure that a war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. It has been studied by military leaders, theologians, ethicists and policymakers. The criteria are split into two groups: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The first group of criteria concerns the morality of going to war, and the second group of criteria concerns the moral conduct within war. There have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. The just war theory postulates the belief that war, while it is terrible but less so with the right conduct, is not always the worst option. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.
Conscience is a cognitive process that elicits emotion and rational associations based on an individual's moral philosophy or value system. Conscience stands in contrast to elicited emotion or thought due to associations based on immediate sensory perceptions and reflexive responses, as in sympathetic central nervous system responses. In common terms, conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a person commits an act that conflicts with their moral values. The extent to which conscience informs moral judgment before an action and whether such moral judgments are or should be based on reason has occasioned debate through much of modern history between theories of basics in ethic of human life in juxtaposition to the theories of romanticism and other reactionary movements after the end of the Middle Ages.
Citizens of Israel have refused to serve in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) or have disobeyed orders on the grounds of pacifism, antimilitarism, religious philosophy, or political disagreement with Israeli policy such as its occupation of the West Bank. Conscientious objectors in Israel are known as sarvanim which is sometimes translated as "refuseniks", or mishtamtim.
Jeremy Dean Hinzman is an Iraq War resister who was the first American deserter to seek refugee status in Canada.
The Federal Republic of Germany had conscription for male citizens between 1956 and 2011. On 22 November 2010, the German Minister of Defence proposed to the government to put conscription into abeyance on 1 July 2011. The constitution, however, retains provisions that would legalize the potential reintroduction of conscription.
Katsuki James Otsuka was a Nisei Japanese American Quaker who was jailed as a conscientious objector during World War II, and later became a war tax resister.
Conscientious objection to military taxation (COMT) is a legal theory that attempts to extend into the realm of taxation the concessions to conscientious objectors that many governments allow in the case of conscription, thereby allowing conscientious objectors to insist that their tax payments not be spent for military purposes.
South African resistance to war has a long tradition, and a history that includes conscientious objectors, pacifists, deserters and draft dodgers, as well as those whose objections are based upon the notion of "just war" as opposed to unjust or illegal war.
William "Bill" White was a Sydney school teacher during the Vietnam War. In July 1966, White defied a notice to report for duty at an army induction centre. White was the first Australian to be a public conscientious objector to the Vietnam War. Both this initial application for total exemption and subsequent appeals were rejected. White was removed from his classroom and ordered to report to Army quarters at Watsons Bay. He refused to comply and waited at home for the authorities to make the next move.
Dale Edwin Noyd was a decorated captain and fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force who gained worldwide attention when he became a conscientious objector to protest the Vietnam War.
Halil Savda is a Turkish conscientious objector who has been subjected to continued arrest and conviction for his refusal to serve mandatory military service – in violation of Turkish law.
The Richmond Sixteen were a group of "absolutist" British conscientious objectors during the First World War. Conscripted into the British Army in 1916, they refused to undertake even non-combatant military duties. Brought together at Richmond Castle, Yorkshire, most not knowing each other previously, they were transported to France, where they were court-martialled and formally sentenced to be executed by firing squad, but this sentence was immediately commuted to ten years' penal servitude. They were released in April 1919, several months after the Armistice of 11 November 1918 and a few weeks before the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.
Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971), is a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, adding constraints on the terms of conscientious objection resulting from draftees in the Selective Service.
Conscience: Taxes for Peace Not War is an advocacy group based in the United Kingdom. Conscience's primary aim is to change British tax law to allow conscientious objectors to military taxation to redirect the military portion of their taxes to a fund designed for international peacebuilding, conflict management, conflict prevention and other non-violent interventions. Quakers, Mennonites, Baháʼís, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and Haredim Jews all practice conscientious objection for reasons of faith. Many other individuals do so for reasons of conscience, some believing there is little moral difference between actually firing lethal weapons and paying someone else to do so. Conscience believes that to deny these individuals the right to redirect the military portion of their taxes is to deny them freedom of thought, conscience, and religion as enshrined in various national and international human rights laws.
The Non-Combatant Corps (NCC) was a corps of the British Army composed of conscientious objectors as privates, with NCOs and officers seconded from other corps or regiments. Its members fulfilled various non-combatant roles in the army during the First World War, the Second World War and the period of conscription after the Second World War.
Conscientious objection in the United States is based on the Military Selective Service Act, which delegates its implementation to the Selective Service System. Conscientious objection is also recognized by the Department of Defense.
While the Republic of Korea's Constitution states that all citizens, regardless of gender, sex, political or religious affiliation, should be afforded equal treatment under the law, some scholars, such as Intaek Hwang, claim that the culture of militarism is so pervasive that Conscientious Objectors are stripped of the rights discussed in the Constitution when universal male conscription became the law in 1948. A Conscientious Objector is defined as "an individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience and or religion" by the United Nation's Human Rights Commission. Since the signing of the Conscription Law in 1949, stating that every male 18 years of age must serve in the military, Conscientious Objectors, when found, are arrested and subject to violent punishments.
The moral equality of combatants (MEC) or moral equality of soldiers is the principle that soldiers fighting on both sides of a war are equally honorable, unless they commit war crimes, regardless of whether they fight for a just cause. MEC is a key element underpinning international humanitarian law (IHL)—which applies the rules of war equally to both sides—and traditional just war theory. According to philosopher Henrik Syse, MEC presents a serious quandary because "it makes as little practical sense to ascribe blame to individual soldiers for the cause of the war in which they fight as it makes theoretical sense to hold the fighters on the two sides to be fully morally equal". The moral equality of combatants has been cited in relation to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict or the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.