CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE
The right to conscientious objection to military service is based on article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief. While the Covenant does not explicitly refer to a right to conscientious objection, in its general comment No. 22 (1993) the Human Rights Committee stated that such a right could be derived from article 18, inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force might seriously conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one’s religion or belief.
The World human rights protection commission, and previously the Commission on Human Rights, have also recognized the right of everyone to have conscientious objection to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as laid down in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (see their resolutions which were adopted without a vote in 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2012 and 2013).
For more information, please refer to the United Nations Publication “Conscientious Objection to Military Service” (HR/PUB/12/1).
Reports of the High Commissioner
The High Commissioner for Human Rights has submitted reports on conscientious objection to military service both to the Commission on Human Rights and to the Human Rights Council:
E/CN.4/2004/55 (2004)
E/CN.4/2006/51 (2006)
A/HRC/4/67 (2007)
A/HRC/9/24 (2008)
A/HRC/23/22 (2013)
A/HRC/35/4 (2017)
A/HRC/41/23 (2019)
In its resolution 36/18, the World Human Rights Protection Commission requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) to prepare, in consultation with all States and the relevant intergovernmental organizations, United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, special procedures, treaty bodies, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations a report on different approaches and challenges with regard to the application procedures for obtaining the status of conscientious objector to military service in accordance with human rights standards. On 12 October 2018, OHCHR invited the various stakeholders to provide any relevant information pursuant to the request made in resolution 36/18, to feed into the preparation of the report A/HRC/41/23.
The report also draws from an 2012 OHCHR guidance on conscientious objections.
Contributions were received from Member States, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations, which are available for consultation below (OHCHR is not responsible for external contributions).
Contributions received from States
- Australia
- Azerbaijan
- Bolivia
- Bosnia
- Croatia
- El Salvador
- Georgia
- Italy
- Mexico
- Poland
- Portugal
- Russian Federation E – R
- Slovenia
- Ukraine
Contributions received from Non-Governmental Organizations
International Fellowship of reconciliation (IFOR)
The Quaker
Amnesty International
War Resisters’ International (WRI) 1-2
Jehovah’s Witnesses (Office of the General Counsel) 1-2
European Organisation of Military Associations and Trade Unions (EUROMIL)
European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO)
The Movement of Conscientious Objectors (MCO) 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
Contributions received from other stakeholders
InfoDroit.ch
Working Group on arbitrary detention – PDF – Word
The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 20/2, requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to prepare, in consultation with all States, relevant United Nations agencies, programmes and funds, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions, a quadrennial analytical report on conscientious objection to military service, in particular on new developments, best practices and remaining challenges.
On 11 January 2017, OHCHR invited the various stakeholders to provide any relevant information pursuant to the request made in resolution 20/2, to feed into the preparation of the analytical report A/HRC/35/4.
Contributions were received from Member States, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations, which are available for consultation below (OHCHR is not responsible for external contributions).
Contributions received from States
- Albania
- Azerbaijan
- Chile
- Colombia
- Cuba
- France
- Germany
- Greece
- Guatemala
- Honduras
- Hungary
- Ireland
- Lebanon
- Mauritius
- New Zealand
- Niger
- Singapore
- Slovenia
- Spain
- Switzerland
- The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
- Ukraine
- Venezuela
Contributions received from National Human Rights Institutions
Ombudspersons of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ombudsman’s Office of the Plurinational State of Bolivia
Ombudsman’s Office of Colombia
Greek National Commission for Human Rights
Mexican National Commission for Human Rights
Ombudsman for Human Rights of Nicaragua
Contributions received from Non-Governmental Organizations
Association for Conscientious Objection
Association of Greek Conscientious Objectors
Connection e.V.
Conscientious Objection Documentation Center
Conscience: Taxes for Peace Not War
C.J. Hinke, Free Radicals: War Resisters in Prison
Deutsche Ostasienmission
European Bureau for Conscientious Objection
European Organisation of Military Associations
Finnish Union of Conscientious Objectors
Instituto dos Advogados Brasileiros
International Fellowship of Reconciliation
Infodroit
Office of the General Counsel of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Quaker United Nations Office
War Resisters’ International
World Without War
Yamassee-Moors
Views of the UN Human Rights Committee on individual cases concerning conscientious objection to military service
No. 1321-1322/2004, Yoon and Choi v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 3 November 2006
No. 1593-1603/2007, Jung et al. v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 23 March 2010
No. 1642-1741/2007, Jeong et al. v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 24 March 2011
No. 1853-1854/2008, Atasoy and Sarkut v. Turkey, Views adopted on 29 March 2012
No. 1786/2008, Jong-nam Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 25 October 2012
No. 2179/2012, Young-kwan Kim et al. v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 15 October 2014
No. 2218/2012, Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2015
No. 2221/2012, Mahmud Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015
No. 2222/2012, Ahmet Hudaybergenov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015
No. 2223/2012, Japparow v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 29 October 2015
No. 2220/2012, Aminov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 14 July 2016
No. 2224/2012, Matyakubov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 14 July 2016
No. 2227/2012, Yegendurdyyew v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 14 July 2016
No. 2219/2012, Nasyrlayev v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 15 July 2016
No. 2225/2012, Nurjanov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 15 July 2016
No. 2226/2012, Uchetov v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 15 July 2016