"The Right to Refuse to Kill"

WI "The Right to Refuse to Kill" was added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Was it feasable? Would it have consequences? Currently it can be appealed to indirectly via Article 18 of the UDHR( the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) and efforts are being made to make it more explicit but we're not there yet.
I can imagine this increasing accusations of human rights violations and being especially unliked by hawks and autocracies around the world(who probably had a hand in stopping it from getting adopted).
Thoughts? e: what measures could entities not liking this ruling take outside of not adopting the UDHR?
 
Last edited:
Well for countries without conscription I don't see much of a problem with this. "The Right to Refuse to Kill" doesn't mean you can't be asked to waive that right as a condition for joining the armed forces, police, etc as long as no one is forced to join any of those.
 
Well for countries without conscription I don't see much of a problem with this. "The Right to Refuse to Kill" doesn't mean you can't be asked to waive that right as a condition for joining the armed forces, police, etc as long as no one is forced to join any of those.


They could still be required to serve, but only as stretcher bearers or other noncombatant roles.
 
Most western countries have provisions for conscientious objectors to perform non-combat service in the military or alternative civilian service, so this provision would mean little. Unfortunately, most of the countries in the world currently completely or mostly ignore the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, except to quote it to accuse other countries. I doubt very much that adding this clause to the UDHR will make any difference - those countries that allow conscientious objection will continue to do so, those that don't will ignore this along with freedom of religion, freedom of speech, no sexual discrimination/inferior status for women and so forth. I can imagine North Korea responding to this by saying "all patriotic Koreans want to be ready to repel the American Imperialist invaders and their running dog lackeys from the south. Of course we have no conscientious objectors here..." Just one example of many, and just try being a Seventh Day Adventist of Jehovah's Witness in Russia these days.

The UDHR should rather be titled "the list of rights we think everybody should have, but if you choose not to agree no penalty".
 
BTW, Madison's first draft for what would become the Second Amendment did have a specific protection for conscientious objectors (though only religious ones): "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html
 

SsgtC

Banned
They could still be required to serve, but only as stretcher bearers or other noncombatant roles.

This is tricky here. Do you know how many people I know who served in non-combatant roles in Iraq or Afghanistan and ended up in combat anyway? People claiming CO status would be better served by giving them alternative civil service.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
BTW, Madison's first draft for what would become the Second Amendment did have a specific protection for conscientious objectors (though only religious ones) . . .
And that's pretty much the way it is now. For example, I think during the Vietnam War, you had to be a Mennonite, a Friend, etc, etc. You had to be from a religion which was traditional pacifist. You couldn't just have figured it out on your own.
 

SsgtC

Banned
And that's pretty much the way it is now. For example, I think during the Vietnam War, you had to be a Mennonite, a Friend, etc, etc. You had to be from a religion which was traditional pacifist. You couldn't just have figured it out on your own.

This was actually an issue back in WWII as well. For example, in WWI Jehovah's Witnesses would serve in non-combatant roles in the military (medics were a popular choice for MOS).

By WWII, Jehovah's Witnesses had changed their understanding of scripture and refused all military service. Some were imprisoned for that. Mainly because they weren't a "traditionally pacifist religion."

That helped bring us to our current understanding of CO status and no longer requiring the individual be a member of those faiths
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
That helped bring us to our current understanding of CO status and no longer requiring the individual be a member of those faiths
(1) Could an atheist or agnostic in the United States who had a philosophic objection to killing get CO status?

(2) How about what I've heard termed "continent pacifism," which is the view that almost any conceivable war in our actual current world is likely to be morally wrong, rather than worrying and fretting about hypothetical situations?

(3) How about selective opposition that a particular war is wrong? (which was a widely held view during the Vietnam War) On this question, the answer is almost certainly no. No government wants to give up this power and would NOT WELCOME this as a check on its own power. But we as citizens are free to consider this point and maybe decide differently.
 

SsgtC

Banned
(1) Could an atheist or agnostic in the United States who had a philosophic objection to killing get CO status?

(2) How about what I've heard termed "continent pacifism," which is the view that almost any conceivable war in our actual current world is likely to be morally wrong, rather than worrying and fretting about hypothetical situations?

(3) How about selective opposition that a particular war is wrong? (which was a widely held view during the Vietnam War) On this question, the answer is almost certainly no. No government wants to give up this power and would NOT WELCOME this as a check on its own power. But we as citizens are free to consider this point and maybe decide differently.

Your first question, yes. An Atheist could claim CO status.

Your second question, again would be yes. That is pretty much the definition of CO. Believing all war to be morally wrong.

Your third, yeah, that's a no. Here's where the definition of CO gets tricky. If you believe that ANY war was worth fighting, you can be denied CO status. Hell, if you play violent video games, especially games like COD or Bad Company, you WILL be denied CO status since you are clearly NOT morally opposed to war. Basically, if you want to be considered a CO, you need to actually object to war in all it's forms. Including in entertainment.
 
And that's pretty much the way it is now. For example, I think during the Vietnam War, you had to be a Mennonite, a Friend, etc, etc. You had to be from a religion which was traditional pacifist. You couldn't just have figured it out on your own.


Trouble is, I suppose, that Draft Boards tend to want evidence that you have such a belief, and membership of a pacifist faith provides that.

They can't just take your word for it, or anybody would be able to claim exemption. It may be possible to find other evidence, but probably a lot harder.
 
I was wondering if the Right to Refuse to Kill would have a broader application than regular CO status, as in it could even be used to refuse participating in a particular war.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
And since modern warfare is a lot more high-tech, maybe we could draft both women and men aged 50 to 70, with provisions for health and belief exceptions.

As much as a tragedy as it would be for a person this age with a family to die in war time, it's even more of a tragedy for a young person.
 
Trouble is, I suppose, that Draft Boards tend to want evidence that you have such a belief, and membership of a pacifist faith provides that.

They can't just take your word for it, or anybody would be able to claim exemption. It may be possible to find other evidence, but probably a lot harder.

There's the example of Israel, which in theory has universal conscription. The Supreme Court recently ruled that refusal to serve for being a conscientious objector was permitted (though selective service - e.g., serving as an ambulance driver like some pacifists do in some countries) is not. It's also worth mentioning that Israel has no "unarmed soldiers" - medics, ambulance drivers, surgeons, chaplains, etc are all trained in weapons and armed in general (though those not in combat units don't carry weapons day-to-day, which is true of all such soldiers). On the other hand, less than 10% of people who apply for conscientious objector status actually receive it, and most that do have family political connections. On the other other hand, refusal to enlist is typically punished by a prison sentence of about the length of service (I think in military prison, which in many ways is like all the boring parts of being in the army).

As an aside, there are lots of ways to get out of serving in the military. For example being ultra-Orthodox, a "regular" Orthodox woman, a married woman, Christian Arab, Muslim Arab, Bedouin (all legally different groups), or actually being physically or mentally unfit; though note that there are ethnic/religious minorities that are conscripted such as the Druze or Circassians. The favored way for "regular" Israelis is to have themselves be declared mentally unfit. The IDF is usually fairly lenient in these cases, since as an organization it's fairly sensitive to mental health (suicide is terrible for morale). For girls, a sham marriage is also pretty common. Note that there's fairly powerful social pressure not to "draft dodge", though people still do it - this stigma is actually great enough that people who legitimately are qualified not to serve (e.g. physical disabilities) sometimes lie in order to enlist.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
I was wondering if the Right to Refuse to Kill would have a broader application than regular CO status, as in it could even be used to refuse participating in a particular war.
Could be part of a broader revulsion against war post-WWII? And yes, I know, that's probably way too damn idealistic.

But just maybe, if earlier on the United States and Soviet Union had gotten in the habit of competing over who could do a better job providing genuine economic development to third world countries? and if all the usual stuff of picking a side and arming them was viewed as too big a risk to reputation
 
It should be a universally recognized and protected human right. You obviously can't join the military if you hold such views, but otherwise the government should never be allowed to compel you to kill.
 
It should be a universally recognized and protected human right. You obviously can't join the military if you hold such views, but otherwise the government should never be allowed to compel you to kill.

If you don't want to kill then don't take a job where it is a posable you would have to.
 
You're limiting to military/army, but it would equally apply to police, wouldn't it? How do you deal with a situation where a recruit can legally refuse an order to use lethal force?
 

SsgtC

Banned
You're limiting to military/army, but it would equally apply to police, wouldn't it? How do you deal with a situation where a recruit can legally refuse an order to use lethal force?
Then that recruit would never be allowed to become an officer. Or if they already had a badge, they'd likely be terminated immediately
 
Top