This blog post examines the balance between military service obligations and freedom of conscience, focusing on conscientious objection.
In South Korea, many young people are punished annually for conscientious objection to military service. As the number of conscientious objectors grows, the debate for and against it continues unabated. This issue can no longer be left unaddressed. It is time for a serious discussion on conscientious objection to military service.
Recently, the Criminal Division 3 of the Gwangju District Court upheld the original acquittal in the appeal trial of Mr. Kim, who refused induction based on religious beliefs. This marks the first acquittal for conscientious objection issued by an appellate court. According to Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, anyone who receives a notice of induction for active duty and fails to report without justifiable reason shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years. Therefore, this acquittal signifies that conscientious objection constitutes a ‘justifiable reason’.
Conscientious objection to military service is the act of refusing military service and bearing arms based on the conviction that these are absolute evils contrary to one’s conscience, asserting this as a right. In South Korea, conscientious objection is primarily based on religious grounds. Most religions teach against killing. Accordingly, conscientious objectors cannot accept training to kill enemies and refuse even to pick up a gun. This is because they have accepted the teachings prohibiting killing as a matter of conscience.
Conscience refers to the feeling of moral responsibility that humans feel for their actions within society. One’s actions can be divided into ‘actions committed in the past’ and ‘actions to be performed in the future’ based on temporal sequence. Regarding past actions, conscience evokes moral feelings. If the act committed was of an evil nature, conscience leads to regret and reflection. Conversely, if the act was good, one may feel moral satisfaction. Regarding future actions to be performed, if the act is of an evil nature, conscience judges it morally inappropriate and sends a warning. For example, consider the situation: “I couldn’t bring myself to litter on the street because my conscience wouldn’t allow it.” Conscientious objectors to military service judge that fulfilling the military duty involves killing, an evil act, and because they cannot morally accept this, they refuse the military obligation. They choose imprisonment as a second-best alternative instead of military service. This is a deeply regrettable reality.
Article 19 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea explicitly states that all citizens possess freedom of conscience. Therefore, refusal of military service based on a justifiable conscience must be recognized as a right. A justifiable conscience refers to a state where one feels moral satisfaction by acting according to their own beliefs without considering vested interests. If vested interests are considered, this should be viewed as evasion of military service, not refusal. But can ‘justifiable conscience’ be judged externally? Clear criteria are needed to distinguish between draft evasion and conscientious objection.
As defined earlier, conscientious objection is the act of refusing military service out of a conviction that it is an absolute evil. Draft evasion is a broader concept encompassing conscientious objection, including acts of avoiding the state-mandated military service through various means. The difference between conscientious objection and draft evasion lies in the reason for refusing military service. The distinguishing criterion is whether it stems from conscience or self-interest. However, it is difficult for a third party to clearly distinguish between these two.
To resolve this issue, institutional mechanisms like an alternative service system are necessary. Currently, conscientious objectors do not fulfill their military duty but instead receive prison sentences. This is a highly inefficient system. Introducing an alternative service system would provide conscientious objectors with a satisfactory alternative to both military service and imprisonment, while also benefiting the state. However, distinguishing them from draft dodgers remains necessary. Draft dodgers seek to evade service for personal gain. Extending the alternative service period could be one method to differentiate between the two. If the alternative service period is longer, conscientious objectors would accept it, while draft dodgers would be less likely to choose it due to the restrictions on their freedom.
South Korea is the world’s only divided nation, existing in a state of ceasefire where the war has not ended. Accepting conscientious objection is not easy in this unique situation. This is because the duty of national defense takes precedence over the freedom of individual conscience. However, an average of 600 conscientious objectors are sentenced to one year and six months in prison annually and serve their time behind bars. This represents a significant loss. They hold the conviction that they cannot commit killing, even if it means going to prison. For these conscientious objectors acting on a legitimate conscience, an alternative service system would actually be more beneficial to the nation. Of course, institutional improvements are necessary, such as significantly extending the duration of alternative service. Forcibly imposing military service on those who refuse to fulfill their duty demands additional effort and can lead to national losses. I believe it is a better approach to take a step back and build a mutually efficient relationship.
