Conscientious Objection in Volunteer Forces - Essay Example

?Conscientious Objection in Volunteer Forces Conscientious objector is a person who, on the moral and ethical grounds compels the military services and denies pursuing activities related to army. Extensive debates in different countries argue whether there should be a ban or permission of the concept of Conscientious Objection. This paper reveals some positive and negative facts related to Conscientious Objection in volunteer forces. Introduction In history, many conscientious objectors had to face imprisonments and penalties due to their conflicting beliefs and actions with the army’s legal environment. Religious values and beliefs are the imperative reasons that caused the army personnel to fight “war against war” or other military related activities. During World War I and II, the concern of conscientious objectors, became more acute. Many young conscripts often believe that it is immoral and unethical to carry arms and ammunition with them as it is contrary to their religious values. As a result, many young men refuse army services and decide to undertake other civilian services. Sometimes, army personnel who are already working for military services become conscientious objectors when their mind and beliefs make a paradigm shift. In many countries, there is no official permission from military services departments for military personnel to renounce their participation in war times, option to resign this post and work for civilian services. Under these situations, conscientious objectors often confront with punishments, imprisonment, discrimination, prosecution etc. In essence, a decision to compel an individual to engage in armed combats and serve the military, hampers the integrity and dignity of human beings. However, certain human rights association realized the sensitivity of conscientious objection issue and created relevant legislations to deal with such issue. The next paragraph focuses on few legislative actions which consider the sensitivity of the issue. Military Selective Service Act states comprehensive descriptions regarding the issue of Conscientious Objection. According to the Section 6 of Military Selective Service Act, if a person is not willing to pursue his career in military service due to political, philosophical, religious or social code, he can pursue noncombatant services. He can perform civilian work by maintaining the safety, health or interest. Council of Europe (1967) had passed a resolution that defended those individuals who refused to serve the military for other honest reasons. (Parliament Assembly of the Council of Europe No 337, 1967) Discussion Many authors and practitioners believe that military personnel present opposing views and behaviors to military services not only on the basis of religion, but due to other moral values as well. The study of Milenkovic (2003) states that besides having the religious reasons, more often citizens refuse to work for army services because of political, philosophical, moral, and ethical concerns as well. Current Situation After the Second World War, Roman Catholic countries and traditions especially, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Austria and Portugal legally recognized conscientious objection. On the other hand, countries belonging to communism regimes did not permit the legalization of this act. After the plunge of communism, many European Countries now recognize these acts by allowing conscientious objection and further spread it to other continents and countries. End State Goals In some authors’ point of view, there should be no permission of the idea of conscientious objection due to numbers of reasons. Every nation aims to consolidate the number of army personnel of their country as it is very constructive and crucial for the security and sovereignty of the whole nation. The larger the number of military personnel, the safer will be the sovereignty of the nation as a whole. Possible Alternate Outcomes for the Current Situation The current situation allows conscientious objections in many countries as per United Nations rulings. However, many countries are unable to find the rationale of reinforcing the laws related to conscientious objections. Therefore, due to the controversial nature of this concept, military regulators and defense experts researched different dimensions of conscientious objections in order to reach consensus. In order to develop such mechanism which allows conscientious objections in an amended form, the concept of “selective conscientious objections” came up front. In the next paragraph, detailed explanation in respect of “selective conscientious objections” as an alternate outcome of conscientious objections follows. In the study of Wilson (2008), even selective conscientious objection poses significant controversies. The author analyzes the situation of Iraq War in which some incidents happened which created more controversies regarding the enforcement of selective conscientious objection. The author argues that the way the law making bodies and authorities accept and afford absolute conscientious objection, they should give similar sort of regard to selective conscientious objections as well. However, the likelihood that, courts and other law enforcement agencies will recognize selective conscientious objection with a sympathetic view in future, is highly unlikely. The reason that Wilson (2008) provides for this idea is the discrepancies that arise in different types of conflicts that military personnel confront due to religious, ethical or moral conscience. Every military personnel has distinct conflicts in his/her mind, therefore, for courts, to actually judge and rationalize the particular conflicts that become a part of conscientious objections, is something very judgmental and can encompass biasness. Facts Supporting Possible Alternate Outcome Foster (2009) identified three facts that act as justifications to support the idea of creation and promulgation of laws in respect to selective conscientious objection. The given paragraphs discuss two of those facts. 1. Fundamental Rights First, in case if government or military becomes incapable of recognizing the honor of military personnel, with all due respect and the fundamental rights that are available to the military personnel, those military personnel should have a right to withdraw their services from army with all the respect and honor that those military personnel deserve in its intended form. 2. Deliberate Personal Reasons Second, deliberate personal reasons can cause selective conscientious objections rather than any religious reason. It may not be a necessary case that the conscientious objector is well-practicing religious individual. However, his/her preferences may change with the passage of time as a result of any change in his mindset. But it would not always be appropriate to relate the religion with conscientious objection every time as other reasons may have their presence. Facts against Possible Alternate Outcome The researchers postulate various arguments vastly against the selective conscientious objection in Israeli context according to the study of Fuchs and Sfard (2004). The following paragraph highlights two major arguments against the implementation of selective conscientious based laws. 1. Discrimination First, Discrimination is the major point that countries need to address. If half of the public follow conscientious objection and the other half fight with the enemies in wars and battlefields, it will lead to a massive discrimination among those who have the responsibility of the whole nation on their shoulders. It can result in the demoralization of behavior of army personnel. 2. Civil Disobedience Second, the danger of civil disobedience can arise if authorities promulgate those laws which relates to selective conscientious objection. Those military personnel who do not have the permission to follow or adopt selective conscientious objection, may attempt civil disobedience as opposed to those military personnel who obtains the benefits of selective conscientious objection. Conclusion This paper comprehensively discusses the supportive and opposing arguments regarding the presence of conscientious objection in voluntary forces. No one can deny the utmost significance of military personnel, but the practice of exercising military services in a country must not be unjust. Since, the time when the army personnel start recognizing that war and killing of innocent people are unfair acts, they start withdrawing from military services. Therefore, these issues demand more critical attention while designing and implementing policies and procedure for military services personnel. If a country wants to make legislation in respect of selective conscientious objection, as selective conscientious objection has its own pros and cons which are of crucial significance, it requires very critical and skeptic mindset and approach. If appropriate legal authorities overlook precautionary steps while developing such laws, a country may suffer huge setbacks which in the end may become extremely harmful for the nation. References DeBartolo, Anthony. (n.d.). Conscientious objectors in a volunteer army. Retrieved from http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/CO.html  Foster, Gregory D. (2009). Selective Conscientious Objection. Springer Science, Business Media, 46. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/ql8314637qt676u3/ Fuchs, Amir Paz and Sfard, Michael. (2004). The Fallacies of Objections to Selective Concientious Objection. Israel Law Review, 36(4), 112-143. Milenkovic, Dejan. (2003). Conscientious Objective as a fundamental Human Right. Retrieved from http://www.ccmr-bg.org/cms/view.php?id=1916 Wilson, Gary. (2008). Selective Conscientious Objection in the Aftermath of Iraq: Reconsidering Objection to a Specific War. The International Journal of Human Rights, 12(5), 665–688. Read More