Traditionally few people challenged the distinction between absolute and selective conscientious objection by those being asked to carry out military duties. The former is an objection to fighting all wars - a position generally respected and accommodated by democratic states, while the latter is an objection to a specific war or conflict - theoretically and practically a much harder idea to accept and embrace for military institutions. However, a decade of conflict not clearly aligned to vital national interests combined with recent acts of selective conscientious objection by members of the military have led some to reappraise the situation and argue that selective conscientious objection ought to be legally recognised and permitted. Political, social and philosophical factors lie behind this new interest which together mean that the time is ripe for a fresh and thorough evaluation of the topic. This book brings together arguments for and against selective conscientious objection, as well as case studies examining how different countries deal with those who claim the status of selective conscientious objectors. As such, it sheds new light on a topic of increasing importance to those concerned with military ethics and public policy, within military institutions, government, and academia.

Demographic trends indicate that, if the size of our nation's military forces is to be maintained through the 1990s, a larger proportion of the declining number of eligible young men and women must be recruited and retained. Some experts have suggested that it may be necessary to return to conscription in order to achieve the necessary force levels. However, the pool of young people, on whom the military must rely, have had the unprecedented experience of having been exhorted for most of their lives to conscientiously question the use of armed force. Our political and moral systems are in conflict over their right to refuse military service. Ninety-four percent of Americans believe in God and seventy percent attend a church or synagogue. 1 Their religious leaders insist on the individual's obligation to selectively object to the use of military force and urge that the law be changed to protect selective objectors. At present, the legal system recognizes only the conscientious objection claims of complete pacifists, who need not be religiously motivated.

This study examines the changing motives and patterns of conscientious objection as well as state policies toward objectors in the Western world.

This book, based on the premise that democracy promotes peace and justice, explores theoretical and practical problems that can arise or that have arisen in democratic polities. Contributors address, with clarifying analyses, such theoretical issues as the relationship between recursivist metaphysics and democracy, the relationship between the economic and political orders, and the nature of justice. Contributors offer, as well, enlightening resolutions of practical problems resulting from a history of social, political or economic injustice.

Reviews the judicial development of the free exercise of religion clause.

Kenneth Vaux elucidates the great just war traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, evaluating the key events of the Gulf War in light of the religious rhetoric used by both sides. Religious and ethical appeals played a major role in winning support not just of the U.S. and Iraqi peoples but of public opinion worldwide. Vaux demonstrates the wide gap between the religious rhetoric and the political-military action it was called on to support.