Conscientious objection and military conscientious objection: where do we draw the line and is alternative service a solution?

Every year in South Korea, many young men are punished for conscientious objection to military service, and the debate continues. To solve the problem of blurring the distinction between conscientious objection and military service avoidance, it is suggested that an alternative service system should be introduced to reduce the national losses and create a mutually efficient solution.

 

In South Korea, many young men are punished for conscientious objection to military service every year. As there are many conscientious objectors, there are many debates for and against. We can no longer ignore this issue. It is time for a serious discussion on conscientious objection.
Recently, the Criminal Division 3 of the Gwangju District Court acquitted Kim Amo-gae, who refused to enlist in the military based on his religious beliefs, on appeal. This is the first acquittal of a conscientious objector by an appellate court. According to Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, if a person who receives a notice to enlist for active duty fails to enlist without a valid reason, he or she shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years. Therefore, this acquittal means that conscientious objection constitutes ‘just cause’.
Conscientious objection is the act of refusing to serve in the military because one is convinced that it is an absolute evil that violates one’s conscience and claims it as a right. In South Korea, conscientious objections are mostly practiced on religious grounds. Most religions teach against killing. Therefore, conscientious objectors cannot accept training to kill enemies and refuse to pick up a gun because they have accepted the prohibition of killing in their conscience.
Conscience is the feeling of moral responsibility for one’s actions in society. One’s actions can be divided into “past acts” and “future acts” in chronological order. For past actions, conscience feels moral feelings. If the act was of an evil nature, the conscience feels regret and reflection. On the other hand, if your actions were good, you may feel moral satisfaction. As for future actions, if they are of an evil nature, your conscience judges them as morally inappropriate and sends you a warning. For example, “I couldn’t throw trash on the street because my conscience pricked me.” Conscientious objectors refuse military service because they find it morally unacceptable to fulfill their military obligation because they believe it is an evil act of killing. They choose the next best alternative to military service: imprisonment. This is a very unfortunate reality.
Article 19 of the Korean Constitution states that all citizens have freedom of conscience. Therefore, refusal of military service based on legitimate conscience should be recognized as a right. A clear conscience is a state of moral satisfaction when a person acts in accordance with his or her beliefs without considering profit. If a person’s interests are taken into account, this should be viewed as an avoidance of military service, not a refusal. However, is it possible for an external party to determine ‘good conscience’? We need a clear standard to distinguish between conscientious objection and conscientious objection.
Conscientious objection, as defined above, is the act of refusing military service because you are convinced that it is an absolute evil. Avoidance of military service is a higher-level concept that includes conscientious objection, and involves avoiding state-imposed military service through various means. The difference between conscientious objection and conscientious objection is the reason for the objection. The distinction is whether it’s for conscience or profit. However, it is difficult for third parties to clearly distinguish this difference.
To solve this problem, an institutional mechanism such as alternative service is needed. Currently, conscientious objectors are not required to serve in the military, but are instead sentenced to prison. This is a highly inefficient system. With alternative service, conscientious objectors would have a satisfactory alternative to neither military service nor imprisonment, and the country would benefit. However, it’s important to distinguish between conscientious objectors and conscientious objectors. Conscientious objectors seek to avoid military service based on self-interest. To distinguish between them, we can consider extending the duration of alternative service. If the period of alternative service is extended, conscientious objectors will accept it, whereas military conscientious objectors will not be able to easily choose due to freedom restrictions.
South Korea is the only country in the world that is divided and is in a state of ceasefire with an unending war. Accepting conscientious objectors in this unique situation is not easy. The duty of national defense is more important than the freedom of conscience. However, every year, an average of 600 conscientious objectors are sentenced to one and a half years in prison. This is a significant loss. They believe that they cannot kill, even if it means going to prison. For these legitimate conscientious objectors, the country would be better off with an alternative service system. Of course, there are institutional complements, such as significantly increasing the duration of alternative service. Forcing those who would not otherwise fulfill their military obligations to do so would require additional effort and cause national losses. I think it is better to take a step back and create a mutually efficient relationship.