Conscientious objectors to military service are celebrating after the United Nations Human Rights Committee upheld a decision to protect their rights.

The Committee has unanimously confirmed that conscientious objection is protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This follows a landmark decision three years ago, when the Committee ruled for the first time that refusal of military service is a protected manifestation of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. On that occasion, two Committee members dissented.
‘We are delighted that the Committee has not only reiterated its previous decision that conscientious objection is protected by the Covenant, but has done so unanimously,’ said Rachel Brett of the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO).
Individuals in many countries will now be able to complain to the Committee if they consider that their right to conscientious objection has been violated. But this applies only in countries that are signatories to the Covenant and accept this procedure. Also, they must first exhaust all legal channels in their own country.

This will, however, include South Korea, which has drawn strong international criticism for making no provision at all for conscientious objection to military conscription for men. Those who object are sent to prison and suffer ongoing penalties because of the criminal record acquired.

QUNO has worked for fifty years, in conjunction with local and international non-government organisations and others, to gain the recognition of conscientious objection under international law. Specifically they fought hard to achieve the Committee’s earlier ruling. It was made under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion and belief.

Technically the decisions on individual cases apply directly only to the country against which the complaint was lodged. But they have broader application as they demonstrate the scope of Covenant protection. Currently, 165 states are parties to the Covenant. Two other states with whom QUNO has worked on these issues, Colombia and Israel, will be reporting in July on their provision for conscientious objectors (COs). Both regularly face criticism for their failure to recognise COs’ rights.

An important feature of the current case is that the COs concerned included a Buddhist, a Catholic and a number of non-religious objectors. The first case was of two Jehovah’s Witnesses. The ruling made no distinction between the different beliefs on which the objection was based. This means that there should be no discrimination in relation to the religion or belief from which conscientious objection derives.

‘It is important that the Committee has made clear that religion and belief are, indeed, broad terms and that conscientious objection does not have to be based on a religion that requires or traditionally expects pacifism of its members, nor, indeed, that it has to be based on religion per se,’ said Rachel Brett.

Following the first decision, the South Korean government had indicated its intention to introduce alternative service for COs, but a change of government led to a change of policy about this. QUNO suggest that continued pressure on the government and through other channels is therefore important in order to bring about compliance with the United Nations decisions.