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.

"Does the young man who believes a particular war to be unjust have a moral, political or legal right to refuse to participate in that war? The war in Vietnam confronts us with this question. The rights of a person who conscientiously objects to participation in all wars are recognized by the Selective Service regulations of the United States government. The draft law excuses from service any person 'who by reason of religious training and belief is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.' However, an increasing number of persons--not generally opposed to war--refuse to participate in the war in Vietnam, believing it to be unjust. Although they are known as selective conscientious objectors, they base their objection on grounds other than 'a belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relations.' Their rights to military exemption, which they claim in conscience, are not recognized by the government. Although the problem of the selective conscientious objector is posed most acutely by the Southeast Asian crisis, the issues will remain even if the war were to end tomorrow. This volume explores those issues which urgently engage the life and liberty of the many men who presently assert their rights as they see them against the threat of jail and allegations of disloyalty. The book's distinguished contributors examine the moral, philosophical, political and legal aspects of the problem. While none denies the difficulty of the problem, their argument, taken as a whole, supports the rights of the selective conscientious objector. Their essays will quicken and inform the consciences of all who are challenged by the extraordinary conflicts of loyalty to which we subject many of our young men."--Jacket.

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

Catholic pacifists blame the just war tradition of their Church. That tradition, they say, can be invoked to justify any war, and so it must be jettisoned. This book argues that the problem is not the just war tradition but the unjust war tradition. Ambitious rulers start wars that cannot be justified, and yet warriors continue to fight them. The problem is the belief that warriors do not hold any responsibility for judging the justice of the wars they are ordered to fight. However unjust, a command renders any war “just” for the obedient warrior. This book argues that selective conscientious objection, the right and duty to refuse to fight unjust wars, is the solution. Strengthening the just war tradition depends on a heightened role for the personal conscience of the warrior. That in turn depends on a heightened role for the Church in forming and supporting consciences and judging the justice of particular wars. As Saint Augustine wrote, “The wise man will wage just wars. . . . For, unless the wars were just, he would not have to wage them, and in such circumstances he would not be involved in war at all.”

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.