Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:28:45.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights Confirms Conscientious Objection to Military Service as a Human Right

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

D. Weissbrodt
Get access

Extract

After holding the issue on its agenda for many years, the UN Commission on Human Rights on 10 March 1987 adopted a path-breaking resolution supporting conscientious objection to military service as a ‘legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights! The Commission recommended that governments introduce various forms of alternative service for conscientious objectors, establish impartial procedures for deciding specific cases, and ‘refrain from subjecting such persons to imprisonment’.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , May 1988 , pp. 53 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See, e.g., Baker, J., ‘Conscientious Objection to Military Service’, 4 Quaker United Nations Office Briefing Paper (11 1984)Google Scholar; International League for Human Rights, ‘Conscientious Objection as a Human Right: An Evolving International Issue’, Human Rights Bulletin (1980/1981) p. 3Google Scholar; International Peace Bureau, The Right to Refuse to Kill (1971)Google Scholar; International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, Political Conscience: War Resistance as a Human Right (1978)Google Scholar; Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights, The Case for Political Asylum for South African Conscientious Objectors to Military Service (1979)Google Scholar; Magee, J., Conscientious Objection as Human Right, A Background Paper Prepared for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1980)Google Scholar; Prasad, D. and Smythe, T., Conscription, A World Survey, War Resisters International (1968)Google Scholar; Schaffer, P. and Weissbrodt, D., ‘Conscientious Objection to Military Service as a Human Right’, 9 International Commission Jurists (1972) p. 33Google Scholar ; Woods, O.E., ‘The United Nations and the Right to be a Conscientious Objector to War and Military Service”, Transnational Perspectives, vol. 7, no. 3 (1981) p. 16Google Scholar.

2. Human Rights Commission res. 1987/46, 43 UN ESCOR, Supp. (No. 5) 108, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1987/60 (1987).

3. Eide, A. and Mubanga-Chipoya, C., Conscientious Objection to Military Service, UN Doc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/1983/30/Rev.l, at p. 11 (1985)Google Scholar.

4. Amnesty International, Amnesty International Concerns in Western Europe (1987) p. 8 (AI Index: EUR 03/01/87)Google Scholar.

5. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 84 L.Ed.2d 547, 105 S.Ct. 1524 (1985).

6. Amnesty International, Imprisoned Conscientious Objectors in the USSR: An Update (1986) p. 5 (AI Index: EUR 46/53/86)Google Scholar.

7. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/L.33/Rev.l (1985).

8. Quaker United Nations Office - Geneva, Progress of Conscientious Objection at the 41st Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (3 04 1985)Google Scholar.

9. See Woods, O.E., Conscientious Objections to War and Military Service, Quaker United Nations Office (06 1987)Google Scholar.

10. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1987/L.9 (1987).

11. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1987/L.81 (1987).

12. See UN Doc. E/CN. 4/1987/SR.54/Add.l (1987) at p. 24.

13. Ibid.

14. Eide and Mubanga-Chipoya, op.cit. n. 3.

15. See UN Doc. E/CN.4/1987/SR.54/Add.l (1987) at p. 25.

16. Ibid.

17. UN Commission on Human Rights Report on the 43rd Session, 43 UN ESCOR, Supp. (No. 5) at p. 241, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1987/60 (1987).

18. Ibid., at p. 242.

19. A UN Resolution on Conscientious Objection to Military Service,7 Quaker United Nations Office - Geneva, no. 1 (12 1986-04 1987) pp. 2–3Google Scholar.

20. There was also one country (Lesotho) absent.

21. See Commission on Human Rights Report onthe 43rd Session, 43 ESCOR, Supp. (No. 5) p. 243. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1987/60 (1987).

22. See UN Doc. E/CN.4/1987/SR.54/Add.l (1987) at p. 27. The author wishes to note that he observed the vote at the Commission and based much of this section on the Commission's consideration of the resolution on the notes he took at that time.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., at p. 28.

26. Ibid. For an argument that constitutional provisions requiring military service do not prohibit a State from recognizing the right to conscientious objection, see infra n. 54.

27. See n. 22 supra, at p. 27.

28. Ibid., p. 28.

29. Ibid., pp. 27–28.

30. Council of Europe Consultative Assembly resolution 337 (1967).

31. Resolution on conscientious objection, Minutes of Proceedings of the sitting of the European Parliament, 7 February 1983.

32. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers recommendation no. R(87)8 of 9 April 1987.

33. UN Charter Art. 10.

34. See, e.g., Falk, R.A., ‘On the Quasi-Legislative Competence of the General Assembly’, 60 AJIL (1966) pp. 782, 783CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sloan, F.B., ‘The Binding Force of a “Recommendation” of the General Assembly of the United Nations’, 25 BYIL (1948) pp. 1, 7Google Scholar.

35. See, e.g., Riggs, R.E., ‘The United Nations and the Development of International Law’, BYUL Rev. (1985) pp. 411, 419Google Scholar; Sloan, , loc.cit, n. 34, at p. 5Google Scholar.

36. See, e.g., Higgins, R., ‘The United Nations and Lawmaking: The Political Organs’, 64 Proc. ASIL (1970) pp. 37, 45Google Scholar; Mendelson, M., ‘The Legal Character of General Assembly Resolutions: Some Considerations of Principle’, in Hossain, K., ed., Legal Aspects of the New International Order (1980) pp. 95, 96Google Scholar.

37. The Statute lists treaties, customary law, and general principles of law as primary sources of international law. Judicial decisions and the works of publicists constitute secondary sources. Statute of the International Court of Justice Art. 38(1).

38. See, e.g., Higgins, R., The Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations (1963) p. 2Google Scholar; Mendelson, , loc.cit. n. 36, at p. 99Google Scholar.

39. See, e.g., Higgins, , loc.cit. n. 36, at p. 43Google Scholar.

40. See, e.g., Falk, , loc.cit. n. 34, at p. 782Google Scholar; Joyner, C.C., ‘UN General Assembly Resolutions and International Law: Rethinking the Contemporary Dynamics of Norm-Creation’, 11 California Western ILJ (1981) pp. 445, 455Google Scholar; Mendelson, , loc.cit. n. 36, at p. 10Google Scholar.

41. See, e.g., Falk, , loc.cit. n. 34, at p. 786Google Scholar; Guradze, H., ‘Are Human Rights Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly Law-Making?’, 4 Revue des droits de I'homme (1971) pp. 453, 462Google Scholar; Riggs, , loc.cit. n. 35, at p. 430Google Scholar.

42. E.g., Joyner, , loc.cit. n. 40, at p. 459Google Scholar; Riggs, , loc.cit. n. 35, at p. 430Google Scholar.

43. See, e.g., Asamoah, O., The Legal Significance of the Declarations of the General Assembly of the United Nations (1966) p. 23Google Scholar; Riggs, , loc.cit. n. 35, at p. 430Google Scholar.

44. See, e.g., Castles, A.C., Legal Status of UN Resolutions, 3 Adelaide LR (1967) pp. 68, 74Google Scholar.

45. See, e.g., Asamoah, , op.cit. n. 43, at p. 70Google Scholar.

46. See, e.g., Falk, , loc.cit. n. 34, at p. 786Google Scholar; Schwebel, S.M., ‘The Effect of Resolutions of the UN General Assembly on Customary International Law’, 73 Proc. ASIL (1979) pp. 301, 309Google Scholar.

47. See Schwebel, , loc.cit. n. 46, at p. 305Google Scholar.

48. See, e.g., Falk, , loc.cit. n. 34, at p. 788Google Scholar.

49. See, e.g., Higgins, , loc.cit. n. 36, at p. 42Google Scholar.

50. See, e.g., ibid., at p. 49.

51. See, e.g., Pechota, V., ‘The Development of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, in Henkin, L., ed., The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1981) pp. 34, 70Google Scholar; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, entered into force 3 01 1976, GA Res. 2200A, 21 UN GAOR, Supp. (No. 16) 49, 52, UN Doc. A/6316 (1967)Google Scholar.

52. Marie, J.B., La Commission Des Droits De L'Homme De L'O.N.U. (1975) pp. 303–308Google Scholar.

53. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is regarded as an authoritative and binding interpretation of the Charter because it has achieved the status of customary international law. See, e.g., Sohn, L. and Buergenthal, T., The UN as Protector of Human Rights (1973) p. 519Google Scholar; Humphrey, J.P., ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Its History, Impact, and Juridical Character’, in Ramcharan, B.G., ed., Human Rights: Thirty Years After the Universal Declaration (1979) pp. 21, 33Google Scholar .

54. The States which abstained from voting or opposed the resolution did so either because they were currently engaged in armed conflict (Iraq and Mozambique) or their constitutions imposed military service as a mandatory duty. Iraq and Mozambique indicated their willingness to accept conscientious objection when the threats to their security ceased. As to the constitutional provisions, States with such provisions allow exceptions to the duty of military service for women, children, and disabled persons. Accordingly, a constitutional duty imposed on citizens to defend their country does not prohibit a State from recognizing the right of conscientious objection. See Schaffer, and Weissbrodt, , loc.cit, n. 1, at p. 47Google Scholar.

55. For example, Commission on Human Rights resolution 1987/46 might be used to ask the Human Rights Committee to reconsider its decision in L.T.K. v. Finland, Communication No. 185/1984, which held a communication from an imprisoned conscientious objector to be inadmissible: 7 Human Rights LJ (1986) p. 267.

56. This language appeared in the second operative paragraph of the draft resolution before it was amended at the last minute and also appeared in the 1985 draft. UN Doc E/CN.4/1985/L.33/Rev.l (1985).

57. See n. 30, supra.

58. See n. 32, supra.

59. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/L.33/Rev.l (1985).

60. The Centre for Human Rights modified the language of the first operative paragraph of the resolution to add the word ‘should’ in the phrase ‘Appealsto States to recognize that conscientious objection to military service should be considered a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…! The original language is reproduced above and the delegations of Austria and the Netherlands have sent letters to the Centre protesting the change of language, which might be somewhat more grammatically correct, but which weakens the resolutions. The Centre has agreed to issue a correction of the version which has been printed in the official reports of the Commission.