This survey forms part of the continuing research project on conscription and conscientious objection of the Myrtle Solomon Memorial Fund of the Lansbury House Trust Fund.
Additional funding for the CONCODOC project was granted by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.
2005 updates: We are indebted to the Quaker Council for European Affairs for updates to (and in some cases, new entries for) 47 European countries.
In the post-primitive period, a new concept, a country with a government, emerged and the formation of the military became a 'necessity' for rulers to maintain their power and to look after the security of the country. By and large, service in the military became an obligation for citizenship. Every citizen was expected to keep himself prepared to serve in the armed forces whenever considered necessary by the national government.
In the meantime some enlightened people began to realise that there were other values that were much more important than the unquestioned 'duty to defend one's motherland'. These leaders - prophets - said: universal unity, of which human unity is an integral part, is the highest value to be aimed at. Some of these leaders courageously pronounced mantras, such as 'thou shalt not kill', and 'ahimsa permo dharma' (nonviolence is the highest religion). Many of their disciples and followers refused to take up arms and to obey orders that had anything to do with the killing of fellow human beings. An anti-militarist approach was developed by many Christian sects. People started refusing to join armies. The emperor Ashoka gave up waging wars when he realised how many human lives his last battle had destroyed and the suffering it had caused to the innocent population.
As a consequence, believers in this philosophy suffered severe punishments including death, for disobeying the state's orders to handle lethal weapons and join the armed forces. It is impossible for anyone to guess how many thousands or hundreds of thousands of men and women, particularly men, must have suffered severe hardships, many among them death sentences, because they chose to follow the dictate of their own conscience: not to kill fellow human beings.
The other side of the picture showed how destructive and inhuman the institution of war had become. The number of soldiers needed to build up the military might of the rulers increased. With the growing awareness of the destructivity of militarism, the number of conscientious objectors (COs) to military service also went up.
Until the first half of the nineteenth century, conscientious objection to military service remained limited to members of certain religious sects. Later, not all COs felt the need for the support of any religious or sectarian philosophy. A growing number of people of a younger generation became convinced that the command 'thou shalt not kill' should come from within one's own self and from the conviction that killing fellow human beings was immoral and unjust. It need not necessarily come from any religious belief. This kind of thinking spread fairly wide during the latter half of the last century. The new generation developed a humanitarian approach to life as a whole.
When anti-militarism became a force to be reckoned with and when the number of COs increased considerably, as a result of which the required number of recruits could not be found, governments introduced coercive methods for recruitment. Although such methods had already been used since the pre-Roman days, military conscription in its present form was developed only in the early part of the nineteenth century. It first came into common use in connection with the mass national armies employed by the French in the Napoleonic Wars and then in the Franco-German war of 1870-71. From that period onwards, military conscription was used by all belligerent countries throughout Europe.
The French Revolution of 1789 had seen the beginning of mass armies formed under the compulsory national military law in 1793, conscripting 300,000 National Guards for foreign service. When Napoleon saw that it was becoming more and more difficult to meet the country's need to have an adequate number of soldiers by voluntary enlistment, he used the law and enrolled 2,613,000 conscripts between 1800 and 1813.
One of the arguments in favour of introducing conscription was that international socialism should invariably throw its weight against the aggressor party. This argument was put forward by the French Parliamentarian Socialists. In fact the French syndicalists wanted the Congress to call on all comrades to answer any declaration of war, no matter by what side, with military strikes and with insurrection. From the beginning they regarded conscription as a democratic privilege arising out of the revolution.
The tragedy is that in critical situations many socialists also have taken the militaristic position, arguing it to be the only method of self-defence. As recently as 1958, French citizens were called to arms, with the full support of trade unions, to defend their country in response to rumours of a parachute invasion by Algerian generals who were opposed to a negotiated end of their war with France. This argument has been blatantly used even in domestic strives, e.g. in 1910 the French government employed conscripts to break a national rail strike.
This kind of socialist thinking was not exclusively French. Most of the socialist countries of Eastern Europe under the leadership of Russia, and China, Cuba and Yugoslavia had become fully militarised. Most 'democratic' countries give the same reason for their own militarisation. Their argument in favour of conscription and the importance attached to it is related to national defence and the belief that defending one's country should be everybody's duty and that in a democratic society no body should be spared from that responsibility.
There is another argument put forward in favour of compulsory military service. Under a system of general conscription in which every family is going to be affected by an outbreak of war, public opinion will more likely act as a greater restraint on a reckless foreign policy of its government than if war is to affect only professional soldiers who have accepted the risk as part of their career. In reality, though, this argument has not stood the test of time. It has also been argued that there is no logical difference between compulsory taxation or compulsory education and compulsory military service - that all three are equally necessary for the well-being of the community.
Unfortunately, in reality neither the majority of populations nor their leadership have realised that compulsion implies absence or abandoning of spontaneity and voluntary initiative in whichever sphere of life it is applied to. The same applies in the case of taxes and education. It took a long time to demolish, still without full success, the myth about the ethics of militarism. It seems that to demolish the myth of compulsion in many spheres of life as a prerogative of the State will take even longer, but one day we must and we will succeed. The sacrifice and hard work of conscientious objectors over more than twenty centuries and its continuation is a powerful enough example and an assurance of their success.
Obedience can have two effects on the individual. Initially it may be seen as helping the individual in taking decisions on matters crucial and needing urgent action. It is understandable if a person obeys someone, either voluntarily accepting him as a guide or as one appointed by some responsible agency. The guide, in our present context, is the commander of the armed forces, who may say that the final responsibility is his and not of the soldier. Therefore, the soldier should not feel guilty if he is sent to the front and has to do the killings.
The other side of the human psyche is the real feeling of guilt. In spite of the order coming from outside, even if it comes with an assurance to the soldier that he is not guilty, the one who kills very often continues to suffer from a guilty conscience. Why did I do it? I should have taken the decision myself. Maybe I was mislead due to pressures from outside; but why did I obey the order blindly? There cannot be a feeling more painful than that of guilt. Many of the soldiers are bound to suffer from the feeling of guilt for the rest of their lives.
The concept and the practice of conscientious objection to military service has challenged the authority of the State over the individual and his freedom to a great extent. Cutting down the freedom of the individual, the State dwarfs the growth of the individual, hence weakens society as a whole, which is what militarism does.
But COs have managed to shatter the superiority, glorification and privileges attached to the profession of soldiery. It has also shown that nationalism is a divisive rather than a constructive instrument for building universal human unity. Although COs have not yet been able to bring about the social and political changes which will make our world a war-less world, they have put a break on the spread of conscription and have shattered the myth of militarism as the only force that can bring peace on earth.
It is true that mere refusal to military service is not enough to bring about the social change, a total revolution, the major anti-militarist International the WRI with its branches spread all over the world, hopes to bring about. But there is no doubt either that most creative social and political forces today indicate the fact that militarism is the greatest enemy of humanity and of universal unity. Unless humankind gives up its dependence on military forces and the institution of war, i.e. the forces of hatred, death and destruction, that goal will remain a distant dream.
This book provides a positive sign of hope in that direction. It is encouraging to note that an increasing number of youths are being put off by militarism. Hopefully their anti-militarism will blossom into something that will make this world free of violence and hatred, particularly organised violence. Humankind is longing to see that beautiful day, the day of our dreams.
The authors of this book have done a very valuable job by providing an up-to-date worldwide documentation. It shows the trends of changes which can make the difference in the way we are moving ahead. It also gives a glimpse of the future society. But, mind we have covered only a tiny part of the journey. There is much more left to be achieved.
I feel grateful for the opportunity of going through the manuscript at this stage of its growth, and also for the privilege of writing its foreword.
Devi Prasad
War Resisters' International was the appropriate organisation for such a project, because of its international network and the continuing collection of information by the research project on conscription funded by the Myrtle Solomon Memorial Fund of the Lansbury House Trust Fund. After the proposal was approved at the WRI Triennial in Brazil in December 1994, Howard Clark applied to the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, which granted additional funding. The project started in June 1996 and should have been finished in six months - which proved impossible.
To list all who have contributed to this publication is virtually impossible, but I must name some. Erik Hummels must be mentioned as the one who supported the idea from the beginning.
To two of my colleagues working for VD, the Netherlands Association of Conscientious Objectors, I am much obliged. The persistent enthusiasm of Marc Stolwijk to carry on could not be missed. Marc wrote the majority of the country reports and just kept going when we fully realised how vast the project's work was. Anton Luccioni, who worked voluntarily on the project for one and a half year, wrote several of the European country reports. Anton also wrote preliminary reports of all French-speaking countries in Africa.
Without the Myrtle Solomon Memorial Fund of the Lansbury House Trust Fund and, in particular, Howard Clark, the whole project would not have started at all. Howard arranged that WRI would take on such a project, and supervised the project. The data Howard had accumulated over the years, as part of the Myrtle Solomon Memorial Fund Research Project on Conscription and Conscientious Objection, was a rich source of documentation.
Dominique Saillard, who took over when Howard left the WRI office, was a great help in organising the first publication on Europe and arranging the editing. Anya Neher, working as a volunteer in the WRI office, greatly attributed to the promotion of the first publication. Before she left, Anya also arranged two interns who could take over part of her work.
Finally, I wish to thank Pat Arrowsmith and Stijn van der Putte for editing the manuscript. They did a wonderful job in correcting our texts and changing them into readable and correct English.
Utrecht, 18 September 1998
Bart Horeman
Although War Resisters' International (WRI) was constantly updating its files on conscientious objection, the 1968 publication was never actually replaced with an updated version. In 1990 WRI did a European survey, but it was not widely published.
In 1996 WRI started the CONCODOC project. The project's aim was to describe local laws, regulations and practice with regard to conscription and conscientious objection on a country-by-country basis. CONCODOC was primarily a documentation project, putting together as much existing documentation on the issue of conscientious objection as possible. In addition to this, the project sent out information requests and consulted experts to review the existing information and to fill in information that was lacking.
CONCODOC was set up as an answer to the growing need for a comprehensive survey of conscription and conscientious objection around the world. Although some may consider conscientious objection to be a western European concept, it is quite clear that the philosophy and practice of it is rapidly spreading throughout the world. The number of information requests WRI receives about conscientious objection and resistance to military service is steadily increasing. For many groups working on the issue of conscientious objection and military service, be it at national, regional or international level, it becomes more and more important to know what the situation is like in other countries. For groups striving to achieve a legal right to conscientious objection to military service, it is useful to be able to show how the right is implemented in other countries. Moreover, it will prove helpful for those working on the right to claim asylum on the grounds of conscientious objection to military service, to understand the situation in the asylum seekers' country of origin.
In November 1997 CONCODOC published a preliminary first part of Refusing to bear arms, comprising most European countries. This second part of the publication encompasses all countries of the world, including updates of most European countries. However, some relatively small countries have been left out. Most of these small countries are overseas departments of other countries, or countries without armed forces.
Refusing to bear arms is published in a loose-leaf format. Not only does this allow users to insert their own additional information, it also gives room for future updates of country reports. WRI has planned to update individual country reports in case of major changes or if substantial new information becomes available. Updates will be published on the Internet, linked to the home page of WRI. Therefore, any correction, addition or comment on the documentation in this publication is very welcome.
First, a distinction is drawn between countries with a conscription system (conscription exists) and those without (conscription does not exist). In some countries conscription is not enforced, meaning that there is a legal basis for conscription, but that military service is not compulsory. For instance, in the Netherlands citizens are registered for conscription, but not actually called up for military service. For some countries it is has been impossible to ascertain whether or not conscription exists. If different sources give different information, this is stated in the report.
If conscription exists, the present legal basis of conscription is described. Under the heading of military service, the report describes the nature of compulsory military service: who are liable for military service and the duration of military service. The paragraph postponement and exemption explains the regulations allowing individuals to postpone military service and the conditions for exemption from military service. The recruitment section describes how conscripts are actually recruited: in what way and at what age conscripts are called up and how selection of needed conscripts takes place.
If conscription does not exist, the recruitment paragraph will give some characteristics of recruitment. If known, the legal minimum enlistment age is given.
Many reports contain a section on forced recruitment. Although conscription is pre-eminently a recruitment system forced upon citizens, in this report the term 'forced recruitment' is reserved to indicate situations in which individuals are recruited by illegal means or by the use of force, for example by press-ganging youths or by recruiting children who are under the legal recruitment age.
Second, a distinction is drawn between countries with a legal provision for conscientious objection to military service and those without. In the case of the former, these laws are described under the heading legal right. A section right for whom may be added, in which restrictions to the right to conscientious objection to certain individuals and particular circumstances are listed.
The paragraph procedure and practice describes the application procedure for obtaining CO status and the everyday practice over this.
All states recognizing the right to conscientious objection apparently deem it necessary to prescribe substitute service for those granted CO status. Details of such service are described under the heading substitute service.
In a third section, draft evasion and desertion are described. The paragraph penalties sets out the legal punishments that may be given to those who evade military service, disobey military orders or desert from the armed forces. Under the heading practice, information is given about the scale of draft evasion and desertion, about monitoring of draft evasion and desertion by the authorities and about the actual punishment of draft evaders and deserters. In some country reports, this paragraph also deals with the situation of total objectors.
Optionally, a section on forced recruitment by armed groups is included. This section describes recruitment methods of armed forces other than official government forces, for instance in countries in which there are one or more armed opposition movements.
Many country reports have a history section. In these an attempt is made to describe the most significant past developments of conscription and conscientious objection, which took place after the 1968 WRI survey was published. Obviously, these historical sections cannot be exhaustive.
In a final section, statistics are given about the size of the armed forces, and, in case of conscription, the number of citizens reaching conscription age, the number of conscripts in the armed forces and the number of COs.
Sources of information are listed at the end of each country report. In the text sources are indicated by square brackets.
For reference, each country report has a date printed on the first line. On this date the report was closed and the definitive version of the country report was fixed.
army and armed forces
In English the word 'army' has a limited meaning, embracing only territorial armed forces, whereas in some languages the equivalent term of 'army' is applied to the entire military: army, navy and air force. Consequently this report consistently employs the term 'armed forces' if the entire military forces are meant.
conscientious objection and COs
The term conscientious objection is actually incomplete; it should be 'conscientious objection to military service'. However in this document it is obvious what the term 'conscientious objection' means. Conscientious objection is often shortened to CO, but this report uses the abbreviation only for conscientious objectors (COs). When a conscientious objector is referred to this does not necessarily mean the individual is an officially acknowledged conscientious objector. For us, any person objecting to perform any military service for ethical reasons may be called a CO.
conscript and conscription
'Conscription' is the term used for compulsory military service. When people are 'conscripted' this means that the law lays down that they are liable for military service. The term 'conscripts' is applied to individuals (mainly young men) who are conscripted by law. This does not automatically mean they must actually serve, since in most countries there are many regulations distinguishing between those who are obliged actually to serve and those who are not.
currency
Occasionally, country reports mention prices, in the case of fines, fees or soldiers' pay. For consistency and comparison, in most cases local currency has been changed into United States Dollars, abbreviated as USD.
draft and draft evasion
The term 'draft' may be misunderstood. In most countries people initially register for military service, then are medically examined, then finally are called up. In some documents the term 'draft' is used for the registration, thus the American term 'draftee' is used for someone who may possibly be called up. In this report the term 'draft' only applies to actual call-up for military service and is used mainly in the term 'draft evasion', meaning the act of avoiding military service and not responding to call-up.
enlistment and recruitment
Enlistment in the armed forces is clearly an act of an individual. He or she may decide to enlist, which is a voluntary decision. Recruitment is evidently an act the armed forces or the national state: individuals are recruited. The term 'recruitment' may be used both in the case of recruiting volunteers (which should respect the individual saying 'no'), and in the case of recruiting conscripts (which has a legal framework of conscription to force individuals into the armed forces).
forced recruitment
The term 'forced recruitment' may seem somewhat odd, for if military service is compulsory, recruitment is enforced by law. Other sources sometimes use the term 'forced conscription' which is even more curious, as conscription is pre-eminently something forced upon citizens.
In this report the term 'forced recruitment' is reserved to indicate situations in which individuals are recruited by illegal means or by the use of force or violence, for example by press-ganging youths or by recruiting children who are under the legal recruitment age.
substitute service
The term 'substitute service' is consistently used for the service that a conscientious objector must perform instead of military service. Other sources may, unlike this report, use the misleading terms 'alternative service', 'civilian service' or even 'civil service'. The term 'alternative service' would suggest that conscripts were free to choose between military and alternative service and would completely disguise the compulsory nature of military service. Substitute service is not really an alternative: at best it is a service an individual can be transferred to after making a formal request; at worst it is a terrible job imposed on a CO who has done his utmost to stay out of the armed forces.
The term 'civilian service' would be unsatisfactory too, as it would hide the compulsory nature of the service and it would lose the connection with compulsory military service. There are hardly any countries with compulsory civilian service; nearly everywhere civilian service has been instituted because it has been deemed essential that those conscientiously objecting to military service should not just be exempt, but should be required to perform substitute service.
The term 'civil service' would be very misleading, as in Britain someone in the 'civil service' is someone working for the government.
So in this report the term 'substitute service' is used. In some cases 'civilian substitute service' is used to indicate that the substitute service is a non-military service performed outside the armed forces.
total objectors and total objection
These terms are used for COs who refuse to perform either military service or any form of substitute service. In countries where substitute service has not been instituted, certain COs may consider themselves total objectors, as they would refuse to perform any substitute service required of them. This report uses the term 'total objector' only if an objector has actually refused to perform substitute service.
In the list of sources at the end of each report, these are mostly referred to as DIRB, followed by a date.
In 1997 the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) in Geneva sent out a questionnaire on minimum recruitment ages to embassies and missions to the United Nations in Geneva. We are very thankful to QUNO for sending us copies of the responses they received.
Or click here to send an information update
Copyright © 1998-2001 War Resisters' International concodoc@wri-irg.org. ISBN 0 903517 16 7
Web design by Ken Simons