Abstract

Conscientious objection to military service, and the treatment of such objectors when they refuse service, is at the forefront of the ever-evolving human rights discussion across the world. Conscientious objection in the context of military service refers to the refusal of individuals, for religious, moral, or sometimes other policy-related reasons, to take up arms and serve in combat. Objection to military service as an idea has been recorded as early as Ancient Rome in 295 AD, with that objector being subsequently executed for his refusal to participate in service. As will be shown in this note, governmental regimes from countries across the world have struggled with balancing the need for equity and manpower in the armed forces and the human right to abstain from violence if their religion mandates them to do so. This note examines the evolution of the treatment of conscientious objectors from three countries who have all had similar, yet distinguishable, paths to recognition of their right to conscientiously object, and attempts to apply the lessons learned from those countries to another in the midst of legal and cultural challenges to its current mandatory military service regime—South Korea.

Keywords: south korea, mandatory military service, punishment, military service, armed forces, objectors to mandate