Editing Conscientious objector (section)

==Conscientious objection around the world==
===Belgium===
Conscription was mandatory to all able-bodied [[Belgium|Belgian]] males until 1994, when it was suspended. Civilian service was possible since 1963. Objectors could apply for the status of conscience objector. When granted, they did an alternative service with the civil service or with a socio-cultural organisation. The former would last 1.5 times as long as the shortest military service, the latter twice as long.

After their service, objectors are not allowed to take jobs that require them to carry weapons, such as police jobs, until the age of 42.

Since conscription was suspended in 1994 and military service is voluntary, the status of conscience objector can not be granted anymore in Belgium.

===Canada===
{{see also|Canada and Iraq War resisters|War Resisters Support Campaign}}

Mennonites and other similar peace churches in Canada were automatically exempt from any type of service during [[Military history of Canada during World War I|Canada's involvement in World War I]] by provisions of the [[Order in Council]] of 1873 yet initially, many were imprisoned until the matter was again resettled. With pressure of public opinion, the Canadian government barred entry of additional [[Mennonite]] and [[Hutterite]] immigrants, rescinding the privileges of the Order in Council.<ref>Smith, p. 321. The [[Conscription Crisis of 1917]] also barred immigrants and objectors from voting.

This bar on entry was overturned in the 1920s, allowing immigrants to escape Soviet repression.</ref> During [[Military history of Canada during the Second World War|Canada's involvement in World War II]], Canadian conscientious objectors were given the options of noncombatant military service, serving in the medical or dental corps under military control or working in parks and on roads under civilian supervision. Over 95% chose the latter and were placed in Alternative Service camps.<ref>Gingerich p. 420.</ref><ref>{{cite web |author1=Peter Dueck |author2=Conrad Stoesz |author3=Grant Klassen |author4=Lynette Wiebe |author5=Elsie Rempel |author6=Lawrence Klippenstein |author7=Alf Redekopp |author8=Dan Dyck |author9=John C. Klassen |author10=Grant Klassen |author11=Edward Enns |author12=Jake K. Wiens |author13=David Schroeder |title= Alternative Service in the Second World War: Conscientious Objectors in Canada: 1939&nbsp;– 1945| url=http://www.alternativeservice.ca/credits/index.htm| access-date=2009-04-27}}</ref> Initially the men worked on road building, forestry and firefighting projects. After May 1943, as the labour shortage developed within the nation and another [[Conscription Crisis of 1944|Conscription Crisis]] burgeoned, men were shifted into agriculture, education and industry. The 10,700 Canadian objectors were mostly Mennonites (63%) and [[Doukhobor|Dukhobors]] (20%).<ref>Krahn, pp. 76–78.</ref>

===Colombia===
Conscientious objection is recognised in Colombia.<ref name="gobiernobogota">{{cite web|title=Objecion conciencia cuando y donde se puede practicar|url=https://www.gobiernobogota.gov.co/noticias/nivel-central/objecion-conciencia-cuando-y-donde-se-puede-practicar|website=gobiernobogota.gov.co|access-date=21 October 2022|archive-date=21 October 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021175520/https://www.gobiernobogota.gov.co/noticias/nivel-central/objecion-conciencia-cuando-y-donde-se-puede-practicar|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Czechoslovakia===
In [[Czechoslovakia]], those not willing to enter mandatory military service could avoid it by signing a contract for work lasting years in unattractive occupations, such as mining. Those who did not sign were imprisoned. Both numbers were tiny. After the [[Velvet Revolution|communist party lost its power]] in 1989, alternative civil service was established. As of 2006, both the [[Czech Republic]] and [[Slovakia]] have abolished conscription. The [[Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms]] in both countries now guarantees the right to refuse military service on grounds on conscience or religious belief.

===Denmark===
Any male getting drafted, but unwilling to serve, has the possibility to avoid military service by instead serving community service for the duration of the conscription. According to a poll from July 2011, 2 out of 3 Danes want conscription abolished.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Forsvarsminister: Værnepligt skal bevares|url = https://archive.today/20151220230242/http://www.politiko.dk/nyheder/forsvarsminister-vaernepligt-skal-bevares#selection-2931.0-3131.8|website = Politiko|language = da-DK|date = 8 September 2011}}</ref>

===Eritrea===
There is no right to conscientious objection to military service in [[Eritrea]] – which is of an [[Conscription in Eritrea|indefinite length]] – and those who refuse the draft are imprisoned. Some Jehovah's Witness conscientious objectors have been in jail since 1994.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wri-irg.org/en/programmes/world_survey/reports/Eritrea|title=Eritrea|publisher=[[War Resisters' International]]|website=wri-irg.org|access-date=2019-06-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181031214839/https://www.wri-irg.org/en/programmes/world_survey/reports/Eritrea|archive-date=2018-10-31|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Finland===
{{See also|Siviilipalvelus}}
Finland introduced conscription in 1881, but its enforcement was suspended in 1903 as part of [[Russification]]. During the [[Finnish Civil War]] in 1918, conscription was reintroduced for all able-bodied men. In 1922, the option of noncombatant military service was introduced, but service in the military remained compulsory on pain of imprisonment. After the struggle of pacifist [[Arndt Pekurinen]] a law was passed providing for a peacetime-only alternative to military service, or civilian service (Finnish {{Lang|fi|siviilipalvelus}}). The law was dubbed "Lex Pekurinen" after him. During the [[Winter War]], Pekurinen and other conscientious objectors were imprisoned, and Pekurinen was eventually executed at the front in 1941, during the [[Continuation War]].

After the war, a conscientious objector's civilian service lasted 16 months, whereas military service was 8 months at its shortest. To qualify for civilian service, an objector had to explain his conviction before a board of inspection that included military officers and clergymen. In 1987, the duration of the service was shortened to 13 months and the board of inspection was abolished. In 2008, the term was further shortened to 12 months to match the duration of the longest military service (that of officer trainees and technical crew). Today, a person subject to conscription may apply for civilian service at any time before or during his military service, and the application is accepted as a matter of course. A female performing voluntary military service can quit her service anytime during the first 45 days, however, if she wants to quit after those 45 days she would be treated like a male and assigned to civilian service.

Persons who have completed their civilian service during peacetime have, according to the legislation enacted in 2008, the right to serve in non-military duties also during a crisis situation. They may be called to serve in various duties with the rescue services or other necessary work of a non-military nature. Persons who declare themselves to be conscientious objectors only after a crisis has started must, however, prove their conviction before a special board. Before the new legislation, the right to conscientious objection was acknowledged only in peacetime. The changes to the service term and to the legal status of objectors during a crisis situation were made as a response to human rights concerns voiced by several international bodies,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aseistakieltaytyjaliitto.fi/ihmisoikeuselimet.html|title=Suomi syrjii aseistakieltäytyjiä! – AKL|website=aseistakieltaytyjaliitto.fi|access-date=12 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070726143012/http://www.aseistakieltaytyjaliitto.fi/ihmisoikeuselimet.html|archive-date=26 July 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CCPR.CO.82.FIN.En?Opendocument|title=unhchr.ch|website=unhchr.ch|access-date=12 August 2017}}</ref> who are overseeing the implementation of human rights agreements. These organisations had demanded Finland to take measures to improve its legislation concerning conscientious objectors, which they considered discriminatory. None of these organisations have yet raised concerns on the current legislation.

There are a small number of total objectors who refuse even civilian service, and are imprisoned for six months. This is not registered into the person's criminal record.
<!---Text from [[Conscientious objection throughout the world]] - needs merging into existing text -
For many decades, the civilian service remained unpopular and difficult to choose. Refusing military service would have been very strongly discouraged by all state officials, and getting accepted as a conscientious objector required a trial by an examination board, whose judgement was often very harsh and strongly biased towards military service. These boards included army officers and clergy. A typical hypothetical presented to the examinee was "If a group of men threatened to beat your girlfriend up, would you try to stop them?".

The examinations were abolished in the 1980s, and today a conscientious objector is only required to check a box in the draft form and state whether his reasons are religious or ethical. Severe social stigma attachs to conscientious objection, and the military, which is responsible for the draft, does not advertise the option beyond their legal obligation to mention the option to draftees.

The civilian service of conscientious objectors lasts 395 days, over twice as long as the shortest and most common military service (180 days) and thirty days longer than the longest and mostly voluntary service (365 days).

The first four weeks of the civilian service are spent in training, which mostly consists of general-purpose lectures on various topics. The first three weeks of the training are held at the [[Lapinjärvi Educational Center]], and the fourth week is a free vacation.

In Finland today, the right to conscientious objection is still acknowledged only in peacetime. In recent years several international bodies<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aseistakieltaytyjaliitto.fi/ihmisoikeuselimet.html|title=Suomi syrjii aseistakieltäytyjiä! – AKL|website=aseistakieltaytyjaliitto.fi|access-date=12 August 2017}}</ref> (for example UN's Human Rights Committee<ref name="unhchr.ch">{{cite web|url=http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CCPR.CO.82.FIN.En?Opendocument|title=unhchr.ch|website=unhchr.ch|access-date=12 August 2017}}</ref>), who are overseeing the implementation of human rights agreements, have demanded Finland to take measures to improve its legislation concerning COs, since they have found it to be discriminatory. Sources of criticism have been the punitive length of the civilian alternative to military service, the release of conscientious objectors from military duty only during peace time and the negligence in arranging accommodation for the servicemen{{Citation needed|date=March 2007}}. Since 1999, [[Amnesty International]]<ref name="amnesty.org">https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur20/001/1999/en/ {{Bare URL inline|date=March 2022}}</ref> has considered Finnish ''total objectors'', who have refused to carry out non-military service, as prisoners of conscience, because of the punitive length of civilian service.

The main 12-month period of service can be performed in any institution that is both non-profit and beneficial to the society. Examples include state bureaus, schools, universities, hospitals, libraries, theatres and independent non-profit organisations such as [[Amnesty International]]. Institutions wishing to accept conscientious objectors must comply with rules laid down by the Finnish Ministry of Labour.

From the state's point of view, conscientious objectors are subject to the same rights and obligations as military enlisted men. How the service is handled in practice depends on the place of service, but a typical service consists of a common 40-hour week in the institution.

Some 2,500 men opt for the civilian service every year, which is ca. 10% of the men drafted.

Men who refuse both the military and the civilian services are known as total objectors (Finnish ''totaalikieltäytyjä''). Total objectors are sentenced unconditionally to a prison term equal to half their remaining service. In 2002, some 80 men were convicted as total objectors. It is usual for total objectors to cite in their defence the Finnish Constitution, several international human rights bodies (for example UN's Human Rights Committee<ref name="unhchr.ch"/>), and the [[European Convention on Human Rights]], which bans forced labour except in emergencies and wartime, as well as the arguably discriminatory and unconstitutional exemption from military service granted to women, men living in demilitarised Åland and [[Jehovah's Witnesses]].

Since 1999, [[Amnesty International]]<ref name="amnesty.org"/> have considered the excessive length, as compared to military service, of the civilian service to be punitive and accordingly classifies Finnish total objectors as [prisoners of conscience]. In one recent case (namely ''Case-Hermaja''<ref>http://www.hermaja.org/ {{Bare URL inline|date=March 2022}}</ref>), a total objector Jussi Hermaja has sought asylum from another country, Belgium. While asylum was eventually not granted, he was not extradited because the state of Finland never filed a formal request.

Since some 80% of Finnish men undergo military service and since military training and rank are considered merits at the job market, conscientious objectors experience discrimination. A reserve officer's or NCO's rank is considered a more significant merit for management positions than university degrees or work experience (see [[management by perkele]]). However, in most cases employers legally have no defensible reason to favour or even ask about a candidate's military training.--->

===France===
[[File:Objecteurs.jpg|thumb|180px|right|Stamp created by the {{Lang|fr|Centre de défense des objecteurs de conscience}} (around 1936)]]
The creation of a legal status for conscientious objectors in France was the subject of a long struggle involving for instance or the much-publicised trials of Protestant activists [[Jacques Martin (pacifist)|Jacques Martin]], Philippe Vernier and Camille Rombault in 1932–1933<ref name = JPC>Jean-Paul Cahn, Françoise Knopper, Anne-Marie Saint-Gille, De la Guerre juste à la paix juste: Aspects confessionnels de la construction de la paix dans l'espace franco-allemand (XVIe-XXe siècle), Collection Histoire et civilisations, Presses Universitaires Septentrion, 2008, 313 pages, {{ISBN|9782757400388}}, p.168</ref> or the hunger strike of [[anarchist]] [[Louis Lecoin]] in 1962.

The legal status law was passed in December 1963, 43 years (and many prison sentences) after the first requests.

In 1983, a new law passed by socialist Interior Minister [[Pierre Joxe]] considerably improved this status, simplifying the conditions under which the status would be granted. Conscientious objectors were then free to choose an activity in the social realm where they would spend their civil service time. However, in order to avoid too many applications for civil service at the expense of the military, the duration of the civil service is however kept twice as long as the military service.

The effect of these laws was suspended in 2001 when compulsory military service was abolished in France. The special prison at Strasbourg for Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse to join any military, was also abolished.

Since 1986, the associations defending conscientious objection in France have chosen to celebrate their cause on 15 May.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wri-irg.org/fr/node/1394|title=15 mai – Journée internationale de l'objection de conscience – Internationale des Résistant(e)s à la Guerre|website=wri-irg.org|access-date=12 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160815132422/http://www.wri-irg.org/fr/node/1394|archive-date=15 August 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Germany===
{{Main|Conscription in Germany}}

====Nazi Germany====
In [[Nazi Germany]], conscientious objection was not recognized in the law. In theory, objectors would be drafted and then court-martialled for desertion. The practice was even harsher: going beyond the letter of an already extremely flexible law, conscientious objection was considered [[Wehrkraftzersetzung|subversion of military strength]], a crime normally punished with death. On 15 September 1939, August Dickmann, a Jehovah's Witness, and the first conscientious objector of the war to be executed, died by a firing squad at the [[Sachsenhausen concentration camp]].<ref>September 17, 1939 ''The New York Times'' See also: ''A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust'' by Florida Center for Instructional Technology [http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/people/JWTIMELN.HTM]</ref> Among others, [[Franz Jägerstätter]] was executed after his conscientious objection, on the grounds that he could not fight for an evil force.

====East Germany====
{{Main|Conscientious objection in East Germany}}
After World War II in [[East Germany]], there was no official right to conscientious objection. Nevertheless, and uniquely among the Eastern bloc, objections were accepted and the objectors assigned to construction units. They were however part of the military, so that a fully civilian alternative did not exist. Also, "[[construction soldier]]s" were discriminated against in their later professional life.<ref>[[Bernd Eisenfeld]]: Das Verhältnis der Partei- und Staatsführung der DDR zu den Bausoldaten a) die agitatorische Diskriminierung der Bausoldaten b) die substantielle Diskriminierung der Bausoldaten. pp. 115–125. in: Kriegsdienstverweigerung in der DDR&nbsp;– ein Friedensdienst? Genesis, Befragung, Analyse, Dokumente. 190 Seiten + Anhang. Hrsg. Haag + Herchen, Frankfurt 1978. {{ISBN|3-88129-158-X}}. ''In German''</ref><ref>[ * Sergej Kaledin: Das Baubataillon.Übersetzung der russischen Originalausgabe "Strojbat" (1991). Verlag Volk & Welt. Berlin 1992. {{ISBN|3-353-00927-2}}. ''In German''</ref>

====West Germany and reunified Germany====
According to Article 4(3) of the [[Grundgesetz|German constitution]]: "No person may be forced against their conscience to perform armed military service. Details shall be regulated by a federal law."

According to Article 12a, a law may be passed to require every male from the age of 18 to military service called ''Wehrdienst''; also, a law can require conscientious objectors to perform non-military service instead called ''Wehrersatzdienst'', literally "military replacement service", or colloquially ''[[Zivildienst]]''. These laws were applicable and demanded compulsory service in the German [[Bundeswehr|armed forces]] (German: ''Bundeswehr'') until the abolition of draft in 2011. Initially, each conscientious objector had to appear in person to a panel hearing at the draft office (or contest a negative decision at the [[administrative court]]). The suspension of the procedure (1977), allowing to "object with a post card", was ruled unconstitutional in 1978. Beginning in 1983, competence was shifted to the ''Kreiswehrersatzamt'' (district military replacement office), which had discretion to either approve or reject a conscientious objection, which had to consist of a detailed written statement by an applicant giving reasons as to why the applicant was conscientiously objecting. This was generally just a formality, and objections were not often rejected. In later years in particular however, with the rise of the Internet, conscientious objections fell into disrepute because of the ease of being able to simply download existing example objections. It earned some conscientious objections the suspicion of an applicant simply attempting an easy way out of military service. On the other hand, certain organizations within the German peace movement had been offering pamphlets for decades giving suggestions to applicants as to the proper wording and structure of an objection which would have the greatest chances of success.

Following a 1985 Federal Constitution Court decision, Wehrersatzdienst could be no simple choice of convenience for an applicant, but he had to cite veritable conflict of conscience which made him unable to perform any kind of military service at all. If there was doubt about the true nature of an objector's application, he could be summoned to appear before a panel at the Kreiswehrersatzamt to explain his reasons in person. An approved conscientious objection in any case then meant that an applicant was required by law to perform Wehrersatzdienst. Complete objection both to military and replacement service was known as ''Totalverweigerung''; it was illegal and could be punished with a fine or a suspended custodial sentence.

Nearly the only legal way to get both out of military service and replacement service was to be deemed physically unfit for military service. Both men who entered military service and those who wanted to go into replacement service had to pass a military physical examination at the military replacement office. Five categories/levels of physical fitness, or ''Tauglichkeitsstufen'', existed. ''Tauglichkeitsstufe 5'', in short ''T5'', meant that a person was rejected for military service and thus also did not need to enter replacement service. ''T5'' status was usually only granted if a person had physical or mental disabilities or was otherwise significantly impaired, such as due to very poor eyesight or debilitating chronic illnesses. However, in the last years of the draft, T5 was increasingly given to potential recruits with only minor physical or mental handicaps.

Another way to get out of service completely was the ''two brothers rule'', which stated that if two older brothers had already served in the military, any following male children of a family were exempt from service.

Due to [[West Berlin]]'s special status between the end of the Second World War and 1990 as a city governed by foreign military powers, draft did not apply within its borders. This made Berlin a safe haven for many young people who chose to move to the city to prevent criminal court repercussions for ''Totalverweigerung''. As ''Totalverweigerer'' were often part of the far-left political spectrum, this was one factor which spawned a politically active left-wing and left-wing radical scene in the city.

Wehrersatzdienst was for a long time considerably longer than military service, by up to a third, even when the duration of service was gradually reduced following reunification and the end of the Cold War. This was held by some as a violation of constitutional principles, but was upheld in several court decisions based on the reasoning that former service personnel could be redrafted for military exercises called ''Wehrübungen'', while somebody who had served out his replacement service could not. Moreover, work conditions under military service typically involved more hardship and inconvenience than Wehrersatzdienst. In 2004, military service and Wehrersatzdienst were then made to last equal lengths of time.

Military service and draft were controversial during much of their existence. Reasons included the consideration that Germans could be made to fight against their fellow Germans in East Germany. Moreover, draft only applied to men, which was seen as gender based discrimination by some, but was often countered by the argument that women usually gave up their careers either temporarily or permanently to raise their children. With the end of the Cold War and the German military's primary purpose of defending its home territory increasingly looking doubtful, draft also began to become more arbitrary, as only certain portions of a particular birth year were drafted (usually those in very healthy physical condition), while others were not. This was seen as a problem of ''Wehrgerechtigkeit'', or equal justice of military service.

Then-German President [[Roman Herzog]] said in a 1994 speech (which was frequently cited as an argument for draft abolition) that only the necessity for national defense, not any other arguments can justify draft. On the other hand, this logic tended to not be extended to men serving Wehrersatzdienst, as they usually worked in fields of public health, [[elderly care]], medical assistance or assistance for the disabled. Their relatively low-paid work was seen as an ever more important backbone of a health sector which was grappling with rapidly increasing costs of care.

In 2011 the mandatory draft was abolished in Germany, mainly due to a perceived lack of aforementioned necessity. The ''Bundeswehr'' now solely relies on service members who deliberately choose it as a career path. Neither Article 12a (establishing the possibility of draft) nor Article 4 (3) (permitting conscientious objection) have been removed from the German Constitution. In theory, this makes a full reversion to draft (and Wehrersatzdienst) possible, if it is thought to be necessary.

===Hungary===
Conscription was suspended in Hungary in 2004. Before being drafted anyone can apply for the status of conscientious objector and fulfill his duties in unarmed military service or civilian service.

===Israel===
{{main|Refusal to serve in the IDF}}
All [[Israeli citizenship law|Israeli citizens]] and permanent residents are liable to military service. However, the Ministry of Defense has used its discretion under article 36 of this law to automatically exempt all non-Jewish women and all Arab men, except for the [[Druze in Israel|Druze]], from military service ever since Israel was established. [[Arab citizens of Israel|Israeli Arabs]] may volunteer to perform military service, but very few do so (except among the [[Negev Bedouin|Bedouin population of Israel]]).<ref name="wri-irg.org">{{cite web|url=http://wri-irg.org/co/co-isr-03.htm|title=Conscientious objection to military service in Israel: an unrecognised human right – War Resisters' International|website=wri-irg.org|access-date=12 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130121141156/http://wri-irg.org/co/co-isr-03.htm|archive-date=21 January 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In discussing the status of the armed forces shortly after the founding of the State of Israel, representatives of orthodox religious parties argued that [[yeshiva]] students should be exempt from military service. This derives from the Jewish tradition that if a man wants to dedicate his life to religious study, society must allow him to do so. The request of orthodox political parties to "prevent neglect of studying the Torah" was granted by the authorities. But in recent years this exemption practice has become the subject of debate in Israeli society, as the absolute and the relative numbers of the men who received this exemption rose sharply.<ref>From the [[Torato Omanuto]] entry: "from 800 men in 1968 to 41,450 in 2005 compared to 7 million for the entire population of Israel. In percentage terms, 2.4% of the soldiers enlisting to the army in 1974 were benefiting from Torato Omanuto compared to 9.2% in 1999, when it was projected that the number would reach 15% by 2012."</ref> In 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in the case of ''Ressler et al. v. The Knesset et al.''.<ref name="test">{{cite web|url=http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/07/980/062/n18/07062980.n18.htm|title=בבית המשפט העליון בשבתו כבית משפט גבוה לצדק|date=February 21, 2012|language=he|access-date=December 31, 2013|archive-url=https://archive.today/20131231174322/http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/07/980/062/n18/07062980.n18.htm|archive-date=December 31, 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref> that the blanket exemption granted to ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students was ''ultra vires'' the authority of the Minister of Defence, and that it violated Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and was, therefore, unconstitutional.

As for conscientious objection, in 2002, in the case of ''David Zonschein et al. v. Military Advocate General et al.'',<ref name="test"/> the Supreme Court reiterated its position that selective conscientious objection was not permitted, adding that conscientious objection could only be recognized in cases of general objection to military service.

Women can claim exemption from military service on grounds of conscience under arts. 39 (c) and 40 of the Defense Service Law, according to which religious reasons can be grounds for exemption.<ref name="wri-irg.org"/>

===Italy===
Until 2004 conscription was mandatory to all able-bodied [[Italy|Italian]] males. Those who were born in the last months of the year typically used to serve in the Navy, unless judged unable for ship service (in this case they could be sent back to Army or Air Force). Until 1972, objectors were considered as [[Treason|traitors]] and tried by a military tribunal; after 1972, objectors could choose an alternative civilian service, which was eight months longer than standard military service (fifteen months, then twelve, as for Army and Air Force, 24 months, then eighteen, then twelve as for the Navy){{Citation needed|date=July 2007}}. Since such length was judged too punitive, an arrangement was made to make the civilian service as long as the military service. Since 2004, Italian males no longer need to object because military service has been turned into volunteer for both males and females.

===Marshall Islands===
In the [[Republic of the Marshall Islands]] no person can be conscripted if, after being afforded a reasonable opportunity to do so, he has established that he is a conscientious objector to participation in war (Marshall Islands Constitution Article II Section 11).

===The Netherlands===
Conscription was mandatory to all able-bodied Dutch males until 1 May 1997, when it was suspended. The Law on conscientious objections military services <ref>[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002386/2020-01-01 Wet gewetensbezwaren militaire dienst]</ref> is active since 27 September 1962. Objectors have to work a third time longer in civil service than is normal for military service. The civil service have to be provided by government services, or by institutions designated for employment of conscientious objectors designated by the Secretary of Social Affairs and Employment, who work in the public interest.[[File:Waikeria_Prison_for_WW1_objectors,_c.1923_(27160240521).jpg|thumb|[[Waikeria]] Prison for WW1 objectors, {{circa|1923}} ]]

=== New Zealand ===
In 1916 conscription was introduced in [[New Zealand]], with only [[Quakers]], [[Christadelphians]], and [[Seventh-day Adventist Church|Seventh-day Adventists]] having automatic exemption from the conscription.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Taonga |first=New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage Te Manatu |title=Conscientious objection |url=https://teara.govt.nz/en/conscription-conscientious-objection-and-pacifism/page-2 |access-date=2023-01-25 |website=teara.govt.nz |language=en}}</ref> During the First World War, between 1,500 and 2,000 objectors and defaulters were convicted, or came under state control, for their opposition to war. At least 64 of these were still at [[Waikeria]] Prison on 5 March 1919 – some of whom had gone on hunger strike in protest.

Also during the First World War fourteen objectors, including [[Archibald Baxter]], were forcibly sent to the front lines and were subject to [[Field punishment|Field Punishment]] No. 1, which "involved being tethered tightly by the wrists to a sloping pole to ensure their bodies hung with their hands taking all their weight."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Field punishment No 1 |url=https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/field-punishment-no-1 |access-date=2023-01-25 |website=nzhistory.govt.nz |language=en}}</ref>

During World War Two, conscription was re-introduced in 1940 and 5000 men applied for an exemption on the grounds of conscientious objection.<ref name=":0" /> Of these, 800 were imprisoned for the length of the war, and were barred from voting for ten years when they were released following the end of the war.<ref name=":0" />

In the contemporary setting, there is no statute or case law which deal with conscientious objection.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=United Nations Human Rights Office |title=New Zealand Law and Conscientious Objection |url=https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/RuleOfLaw/ConscientiousObjection/New_Zealand.pdf}}</ref> But, the [[Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights|OHCHR]] believes that the [[New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990|Bill of Rights Act 1990]] and the ratification of [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] and the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] creates a legal framework which enables conscientious objection.<ref name=":1" />

===Romania===
In [[Romania]], as of 23 October 2006 conscription was suspended, therefore, the status of conscience objector does not apply.<ref>[http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061023-023126-3463r Romania drops compulsory military service], United Press International, 23 October 2006</ref> This came about due to a [[Constitution of Romania|2003 constitutional amendment]] which allowed the parliament to make military service optional. The [[Romanian Parliament]] voted to abolish conscription in October 2005, with the vote formalizing one of many military modernization and reform programs that Romania agreed to when it joined [[NATO]].

===Russia===
{{Main|Conscription in Russia}}

The [[Russian Empire]] allowed [[Russian Mennonite]]s to run and maintain [[Forestry service (Russia)|forestry service]] units in South Russia in lieu of their military obligation. The program was under church control from 1881 through 1918, reaching a peak of seven thousand conscientious objectors during World War I. An additional five thousand Mennonites formed complete hospital units and transported wounded from the battlefield to [[Moscow]] and [[Ekaterinoslav]] hospitals.<ref>Smith, p. 311.</ref>

After the [[Russian Revolution of 1917]], [[Leon Trotsky]] issued a decree allowing alternative service for religious objectors whose sincerity was determined upon examination.<ref>The decree was issued in October 1918. Smith, p. 329.</ref> [[Vladimir Chertkov]], a follower of [[Leo Tolstoy]], chaired the ''United Council of Religious Fellowships and Groups'', which successfully freed 8000 conscientious objectors from military service during the [[Russian Civil War]]. The law was not applied uniformly and hundreds of objectors were imprisoned and over 200 were executed.{{Citation needed|date=March 2012}}The United Council was forced to cease activity in December 1920, but alternative service was available under the [[New Economic Policy]] until it was abolished in 1936.<ref>{{Cite web| last1=Braun|first1=Abraham |first2=Th.|last2=Block |first3=Lawrence|last3=Klippenstein| year = 1989| title = Forsteidienst, Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online| access-date = 2006-11-07| url =http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/F6717ME.html}}</ref> Unlike the earlier forestry and hospital service, later conscientious objectors were classified "enemies of the people" and their alternative service was performed in remote areas in a [[gulag]]-like environment in order to break their resistance and encourage enlistment.<ref>Smith, p. 330.</ref>

In the present day,{{when|date=July 2015}} Russian draft legislation allows people to choose an alternative civilian service for religious or ideological reasons. Most objectors are employed in healthcare, construction, forestry and post industries, serving 18 to 21 months.

===Serbia===
Serbia introduced civil service for Conscientious objectors in 2009.<ref>Law about civil service https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_civilnoj_sluzbi.html</ref> the service lasted 9 months and people serving were task to help out in government facilities such as post offices, kindergartens, hospitals etc. In 2020 during covid-19 they were called to help prepare military hospitals for the influx of military and civilian patients.
When civil service was introduced the mandatory military service period was reduced from 12 months to 6 months.
Mandatory military service was abolished in 2011.<ref>Decision
on the suspension of the obligation to serve the military service https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/odluka_o_obustavi_obaveze_sluzenja_vojnog_roka.html</ref>

===South Africa===
{{Main|South African resistance to war|End Conscription Campaign}}

During the 1980s, hundreds<ref>The National Registry of Conscientious Objectors launched in 1989, listed some 700 plus objectors for that year alone. Source: Argus, Thursday, September 21, 1989</ref> of South African white males dodged the draft, refused the call-up or objected to conscription in the [[South African Defence Force]]. Some simply deserted, or joined organisations such as the [[End Conscription Campaign]], an anti-war movement banned in 1988, while others fled into exile and joined the [[Committee on South African War Resistance]]. Most lived in a state of internal exile, forced to go underground within the borders of the country until a moratorium on conscription was declared in 1993. [[South African Border War|Opposition to the Angolan War]], was rife in English-speaking campuses, and later the war in the townships became the focus of these groupings.

===South Korea===
{{see also|Conscientious objection in South Korea}}
The terminology conscientious objector technically has not existed in Korean dictionary until recently. In fact, significant majority of Korean citizens simply associate conscientious objectors with draft dodging, and are unaware of the fact that conscientious objector draftees in other westernized countries are required to serve in alternative services. Since the establishment of the [[Republic of Korea]], thousands of conscientious objectors had no choice but to be imprisoned as criminals. Every year about 500 young men, mostly Jehovah's Witnesses,<ref name="jw-media">{{cite web |url=http://www.jw-media.org/kor/index.htm |title=South Korea |work=Jehovah’s Witnesses Official Media Web Site |access-date=2012-04-13 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120525232027/http://www.jw-media.org/kor/index.htm |archive-date=2012-05-25 }} Imprisonment of conscientious objectors to military service]</ref> are arrested for refusing the draft.<ref name="nojail">{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-korea-objectors-idUSSEO29904620080902|title=South Korea military objectors say don't jail pacifists|date=2 September 2008|access-date=12 August 2017|newspaper=Reuters}}</ref>

South Korea's stance has drawn criticism from The U.N. Human Rights Committee, which argues that South Korea is violating article 18 of the ICCPR, which guarantees freedom of thought and conscience. In 2006, 2010, and again in 2011 the U.N. Human Rights Committee, after reviewing petitions from South Korean conscientious objectors, declared that the government was violating Article 18 of the ICCPR, the provision that guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.<ref name="koreaherald.heraldm.com">{{Cite web|url=http://koreaherald.heraldm.com/common/redirect.jsp?news_id=20110919000963&category_id=020604000000|title=Should conscientious objectors be jailed?|date=2011-09-19|website=[[Korea Herald]]|language=en|access-date=2012-01-08|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130125043104/http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20110919000963|archive-date=2013-01-25|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The government's National Action Plan [https://web.archive.org/web/20120402150820/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/plan_actions/docs/Korea_Summary_NHRAP.doc (NAP)] for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights has not shown a clear stance on the pressing human rights issues such as, among other things, the rights of conscientious objectors to military service.<ref>[http://blog.peoplepower21.org/English/20784 Second Session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080726144917/http://blog.peoplepower21.org/English/20784 |date=2008-07-26 }}</ref>

In September 2007, the government announced a program to give conscientious objectors an opportunity to participate in alternative civilian service.<ref>[https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2007/09/205_10373.html Conscientious Objectors to Get Non-Armed Services for 36 Months]</ref> The program stipulates three years of civilian service that is not connected with the military in any way. However, that program has been postponed indefinitely after the succeeding administration took office in 2008.<ref name="koreaherald.heraldm.com" />

The government argues that introducing an alternative service would jeopardize national security and undermine social equality and cohesion. This is amid an increasing number of countries which retain compulsory service have introduced alternatives. In addition, some countries, including those with national security concerns have shown that alternative service can be successfully implemented.<ref name="koreaherald.heraldm.com" />

On 15 January 2009 the Korean Presidential Commission on Suspicious Deaths in the Military released its decision acknowledging that the government was responsible for the deaths of five young men, who were Jehovah's Witnesses and had forcibly been conscripted into the army.
The deaths resulted from "the state's anti-human rights violence" and "its acts of brutality" during the 1970s that continued into the mid-1980s. This decision is significant since it is the first one recognizing the state's responsibility for deaths resulting from violence within the military.<ref name="deaths">[http://www.jw-media.org/kor/20090126.htm Korean government held responsible for deaths of five conscientious objectors] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100111130234/http://www.jw-media.org/kor/20090126.htm |date=2010-01-11 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2009/01/17/200901170008.asp|title=Abuse blamed for mysterious deaths in army|date=2009-01-17|website=[[Korea Herald]]|access-date=2009-12-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110811142027/http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20090117000008|archive-date=2011-08-11}}</ref>
According to the commission's decision, "the beatings and acts of brutality committed against them by military officials were attempts to compel and coerce them to act against their conscience (religion) and were unconstitutional, anti-human rights acts that infringed severely upon the freedom of conscience (religion) guaranteed in the Constitution."<ref name="deaths" />

The records of conscientious objectors to military service are kept by a governmental investigative body as criminal files for five years. As a consequence, conscientious objectors are not allowed to enter a government office and apply for any type of national certification exam. It is also very unlikely that they will be employed by any company that inquires about criminal records.<ref>[http://jw-media.org/kor/20081231rpt.htm Restrictions on Religious Freedom] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100218010933/http://jw-media.org/kor/20081231rpt.htm |date=2010-02-18 }}</ref>{{cquote|Conscientious objectors ... often spend the rest of their lives tainted by their decision... Criminal records from draft dodging make it difficult for objectors to find good jobs and the issue of army service is often raised by potential employers during job interviews.<ref name="nojail"/>
}}

From 2000 to 2008, Korean Military Manpower Administration said that at least 4,958 men have objected to service in the military because of religious beliefs. Among those, 4,925 were Jehovah's Witnesses, 3 were Buddhists, and the other 30 refused the mandatory service because of conscientious objections other than religious reasons.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/01/117_37552.htmlConscientious|title=Objectors Top 5,000|date=8 January 2009|access-date=12 August 2017}}</ref>
Since 1950, there have been more than 16,000 Jehovah's Witnesses sentenced to a combined total of 31,256 years for refusing to perform military service. If alternative service is not provided, some 500 to 900 young men will continue to be added each year to the list of conscientious objectors criminalized in Korea.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.jw-media.org/kor/20110902.htm |title=Ruling allows Korea to continue imprisoning conscientious objectors |work=Jehovah’s Witnesses Official Media Web Site |date=September 2, 2011 |access-date=2011-10-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111007145556/http://jw-media.org/kor/20110902.htm |archive-date=2011-10-07 }}</ref>

In 2015, Lee Yeda was the first conscientious objector to be allowed to live in France via asylum.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://thediplomat.com/2015/05/a-korean-conscientious-objector-in-paris/|title=A Korean Conscientious Objector in Paris|first=Yena Lee, The|last=Diplomat|access-date=12 August 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/south-korea-authorities-wrecking-lives-by-jailing-conscientious-objectors|title=News & Stories – Amnesty International USA|access-date=12 August 2017}}</ref>

In June 2018, the Constitutional Court ruled 6–3 that Article 5 of the country's Military Service Act is unconstitutional because it fails to provide an alternative civilian national service for conscientious objectors. {{as of|2018}}, 19,300 South Korean conscientious objectors had gone to prison since 1953. The Defense Ministry said it would honor the ruling by introducing alternative services as soon as possible.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/world/asia/south-korea-military-service-conscientious-objectors.html |title=South Korea Must Offer Civilian Alternatives to Military Service, Court Rules |last=Sang-Hun |first=Choe |date=June 28, 2018 |website=The New York Times |access-date=June 29, 2018 }}</ref>

On 1 November 2018, the Supreme Court of Korea decided that conscientious objection is a valid reason to refuse mandatory military service, and vacated and remanded the appellate court's decision finding a Jehovah's Witness guilty of the objection.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-military/south-korea-supreme-court-allows-conscientious-objection-to-military-service-in-landmark-ruling-idUSKCN1N63GZ |title=South Korea Supreme Court allows conscientious objection to military service in landmark ruling |last=Lee |first=Joyce |date=December 30, 2018 |website=Reuters |access-date=March 17, 2019 }}</ref>

===Spain===
Conscientious objection was not permitted in [[Francoist Spain]].<ref>[[Peter Brock (historian)|Peter Brock]] and Nigel Young,
''Pacifism in the Twentieth Century''. Syracuse University Press, New York, 1999 {{ISBN|0-8156-8125-9}} 
(pp. 96–7, 311).</ref> Conscientious objectors usually refused to serve on religious grounds, such as being Jehovah's Witnesses, and were placed in prison for the duration of their sentences. The [[Spanish Constitution of 1978]] acknowledged conscientious objectors.<ref>[[s:Spanish Constitution of 1978/Part I#Division 2. Rights and Duties of Citizens|Spanish Constitution section 30.2]]</ref> The Spanish parliament established a longer service ({{Lang|es|Prestación Social Sustitutoria}}) as an alternative to the Army. In spite of this, a strong movement appeared that refused both services. The [[Red Cross]] was the only important organisation employing objectors. Because of this, the waiting lists for the PSS were long, especially in areas like [[Navarre]], where pacifism, [[Basque nationalism]] and a low unemployment rate discouraged young males from the army{{Original research inline|date=January 2011}}. Thousands of ''insumisos'' (non-submittants) publicly refused the PSS, and hundreds were imprisoned. In addition a number of those in the military decided to refuse further duties. A number of people not liable for military service made declarations of self-incrimination, stating that they had encouraged ''insumisión''.<ref name="Ordás-García 2022">{{cite journal |author-last=Ordás García |author-first=Carlos Ángel |date=May 2022 |title=The Antimilitarist Campaign against Compulsory Military Service in Spain during the 1970s and 1980s |journal=[[Contemporary European History]] |location=[[Cambridge]] and [[New York City|New York]] |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |volume=31 |issue=3 |pages=286–304 |doi=10.1017/S0960777322000224 |s2cid=249051063 |issn=1469-2171}}</ref> The government, fearing popular reaction, reduced the length of service and instead of sentencing ''insumisos'' to prison declared them unfit for public service.

Fronting the decreasing birth rate and the popular opposition to an army seen as a continuating institution of one of the pillars of the dictatorship's regime, the Spanish government tried to modernise the model carried from the [[Francisco Franco|Franco]] era, professionalizing it and thus bringing an end to conscription by the end of 2001. The new army tried to provide an education for civilian life and participated in peace operations in [[Bosnia and Herzegovina|Bosnia]].

{{See also|Insubordinate movement in Spain}}

===Taiwan===
There is the possibility of avoiding military service by instead serving civilian services for the duration of the conscription.

===Turkey===
Conscientious objection is highly controversial [[Conscription in Turkey#Conscientious objection|in Turkey]]. Turkey and [[Azerbaijan]] are the only two countries refusing to recognize conscientious objection and sustain their membership in the Council of Europe. In January 2006, the [[European Court of Human Rights]] (ECHR) found Turkey had violated article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of degrading treatment) in a case dealing with the conscientious objection of [[Osman Murat Ülke]].<ref>[http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2006/Jan/Chamberjudgment%C3%9ClkevTurkey240106.htm "Chamber Judgement Ulke vs. Turkey"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061009185413/http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2006/Jan/Chamberjudgment%C3%9ClkevTurkey240106.htm |date=2006-10-09 }}, Accessed June 7, 2006.</ref> In 2005, [[Mehmet Tarhan]] was sentenced to four years in a military prison as a conscientious objector (he was unexpectedly released in March 2006). Journalist [[Perihan Mağden]] was tried by a Turkish court for supporting Tarhan and advocating conscientious objection as a human right; but later, she was acquitted.

{{as of|2011|March}}, there were 125 objectors including 25 female objectors in Turkey. Another 256 people of Kurdish origin also had announced their conscientious objection to military service.<ref>See the list on the [http://www.savaskarsitlari.org/arsiv.asp?ArsivTipID=2 pages of the "opponents to war"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604020211/http://www.savaskarsitlari.org/arsiv.asp?ArsivTipID=2 |date=2011-06-04 }}
(tr:''savaş karşıtları''), accessed on 15 May 2011</ref> Conscientious objector [[İnan Süver]] was named a [[prisoner of conscience]] by Amnesty International.<ref name="AI">{{cite web |url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur44/003/2011/en/ |title=Prisoner of conscience escapes and is rearrested |date=28 April 2011 |publisher=[[Amnesty International]] |access-date=2 May 2011 }}</ref>

On 14 November 2011, the [[Ministry of Justice (Turkey)|Ministry of Justice]] announced a draft proposal to legalise conscientious objection in Turkey and that it was to take effect two weeks after approval by the President to the change.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25297170/|title=NTV Haber – Türkiye ve Dünya Gündemi Güncel Son Dakika Haberleri|website=ntvmsnbc.com|access-date=12 August 2017|archive-date=5 November 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105214759/http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25297170/|url-status=dead}}</ref> This decision to legalize by the Turkish government was because of pressure from the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR gave the Turkish government a deadline until the end of 2011 to legalize conscientious objection. The draft was withdrawn afterwards.

A commission was founded within the [[Grand National Assembly of Turkey|National Assembly of the Republic]] to write a new constitution in 2012. The commission is still in negotiations on various articles and conscientious objection is one of the most controversial issues.

===United Kingdom===
{{Further|Conscription in the United Kingdom}}
[[File:Conscientious Objector memorial, Tavistock Sq Gardens.jpg|thumb|Conscientious Objector memorial in [[Tavistock Square]] Gardens, London—dedicated on [[May 15#Holidays and observances|15 May]] 1994]]
The United Kingdom recognised the right of individuals not to fight in the 18th century following major problems with attempting to force [[Quakers]] into military service. The Militia Ballot Act of 1757 allowed Quakers to be excluded from service in the [[Militia (Great Britain)|Militia]]. It then ceased to be a major issue, since Britain's armed forces were generally all-volunteer. [[Press gangs]] were used to strengthen army and navy rolls on occasions from the 16th to the early 19th centuries. Pressed men did have the right of appeal, in the case of sailors, to the [[Admiralty (United Kingdom)|Admiralty]]. The [[Royal Navy]] last took pressed men during the [[Napoleonic Wars]].

A more general right to refuse military service was not introduced until the [[First World War]]. Britain introduced conscription with the [[Military Service Act (United Kingdom)|Military Service Act]] of January 1916, which came into full effect on 2 March 1916. The Act allowed for objectors to be absolutely exempted, to perform alternative civilian service or to serve as a non-combatant in the army [[Non-Combatant Corps]], according to the extent to which they could convince a [[Military Service Tribunals|Military Service Tribunal]] of the quality of their objection.<ref>A. J. P. Taylor, ''English History, 1914–1945'' (Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 116.</ref>

Around 16,000 men were recorded as conscientious objectors, with Quakers, traditionally pacifist, forming a large proportion: 4,500 objectors were exempted on condition of doing civilian "work of national importance", such as farming, forestry or social service; and 7,000 were conscripted into the specially-created Non-Combatant Corps. Six thousand were refused any exemption and forced into main army regiments; if they then refused to obey orders, they were [[Court-martial#United Kingdom|court-martialled]] and sent to prison. Thus, the well-known pacifist and religious writer [[Stephen Henry Hobhouse]] was called up in 1916: he and many other Quaker activists took the unconditionalist stand, refusing both military and alternative service, and on enforced enlistment were court-martialled and imprisoned for disobedience.<ref>Brock, Peter,''These strange criminals: an anthology of prison memoirs by conscientious objectors to military service from the Great War to the Cold War'', p. 14, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004, {{ISBN|0802087078}}</ref> Conscientious objectors formed only a tiny proportion of Military Service Tribunals' cases over the conscription period, estimated at 2 per cent.<ref>Adrian Gregory, 'Military Service Tribunals, 1916–1918' in J. Harris (ed.) ''Civil Society in British History''. (Oxford, 2003).</ref> Tribunals were notoriously harsh towards conscientious objectors, reflecting widespread public opinion that they were lazy, degenerate, ungrateful 'shirkers' seeking to benefit from the sacrifices of others.<ref>Lois Bibbings, ''Telling Tales About Men''(Manchester University Press, 2009).</ref>

In an attempt to press the issue, in May 1916 a group of thirty-five objectors, including the [[Richmond Sixteen]], were taken to France as conscripts and given military orders, the disobedience of which would warrant a death sentence.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://menwhosaidno.org/Sentenced/index.html |title=The Men Who Said No |publisher=Peace Pledge Union |accessdate=2021-05-30}}</ref>  These men, known as "The Frenchmen", refused; the four ringleaders were formally sentenced to death by court-martial but immediately reprieved, with commutation to ten-years' penal servitude.<ref name="autogenerated1">[http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10507058.Silence_in_castle_to_honour_First_World_War_conscientious_objectors/ Silence in castle to honour First World War conscientious objectors] dated 25 June 2013 at ''thenorthernecho.co.uk'', accessed 19 October 2014</ref>

Although a few objectors were accepted for non-combatant service in the [[Royal Army Medical Corps]], acting as nursing/paramedic assistants, the majority of non-combatants served in the Non-Combatant Corps on non-lethal stores, road and railway building and general labouring in the UK and France. Conscientious objectors who were deemed not to have made any useful contribution to the state were formally [[Disfranchisement|disenfranchised]] (through a clause inserted in the [[Representation of the People Act 1918]] at the insistence of back-bench MPs) for the five years 1 September 1921 – 31 August 1926, but as it was a last-minute amendment there was no administrative machinery to enforce it, which was admitted to be a "dead letter".<ref>[[A. J. P. Taylor]], ''English History, 1914–1945'' (Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 116; [http://www.spartacus-educational.com/FWWpacifists.htm FWW Pacifists] at spartacus-educational.com</ref>

Britain's conscription legislation of 1916 did not apply to [[Ireland]], despite it then being part of the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]]. In 1918 the Army's manpower shortage led to passing a further act enabling conscription in Ireland if and when the government saw fit. In the event, the government never saw fit, although the legislation led to the [[Conscription Crisis of 1918]]. British conscription in the [[Second World War]] did not apply to [[Northern Ireland]]. Many [[Irishmen]] volunteered to fight in both world wars. The various parts of the [[British Empire]] and [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] had their own laws: in general, all the larger countries of the Empire participated, and some were, in proportion to their population, major participants in the First World War.

In the Second World War, following the [[National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939]], there were nearly 60,000 registered Conscientious Objectors. Testing by tribunals resumed, this time by special Conscientious Objection Tribunals chaired by a judge, and the effects were much less harsh. If objectors were not a member of the Quakers or some similar pacifist organisation, it was generally enough to say that they objected to "warfare as a means of settling international disputes", a phrase from the [[Kellogg–Briand Pact]] of 1928. The tribunals could grant full exemption, exemption conditional on alternative service, exemption only from combatant duties, or dismiss the application. Of the 61,000 who were registered, 3,000 were given complete exemption; 18,000 applications were initially dismissed, but a number of such applicants succeeded at the Appellate Tribunal, sometimes after a "qualifying" sentence of three-months' imprisonment for an offence deemed to have been committed on grounds of conscience. Of those directed to non-combatant military service almost 7,000 were allocated to the Non-Combatant Corps, re-activated in mid-1940; its companies worked in clothing and food stores, in transport, or any military project not requiring the handling of "material of an aggressive nature". In November 1940 it was decided to allow troops in the NCC to volunteer for work in [[bomb disposal]] and over 350 men volunteered.<ref name="UXB92">{{cite book |title= Danger UXB The Remarkable Story of the Disposal of Unexploded Bombs During the Second World War |last=Jappy |first=M. J |year=2001 |publisher=Channel 4 books |isbn=0-7522-1938-3 |page=92}}</ref> Other non-combatants worked in the [[Royal Army Medical Corps]]. For conscientious objectors exempted conditional upon performing civil work, acceptable occupations were [[farm]] work, [[mining]], [[firefighting]] and the [[Emergency medical services|ambulance service]]. About 5,500 objectors were imprisoned, most charged with refusal to attend a medical examination as a necessary preliminary to call-up after being refused exemption, and some charged with non-compliance with the terms of conditional exemption. A further 1,000 were court-martialled by the armed forces and sent to military detention barracks or civil prisons. Unlike the First World War, most sentences were relatively short, and there was no pattern of continually repeated sentences. The social stigma attached to 'conchies' (as they were called) was considerable; regardless of the genuineness of their motives, cowardice was often imputed.

[[Conscription in the United Kingdom]] was retained, with rights of conscientious objection, as [[National Service]] until the last call-up in 1960 and the last discharge in 1963. The use of all volunteer soldiers was hoped to remove the need to consider conscientious objectors. Ever since the First World War, there have been volunteer members of the armed forces who have developed a conscientious objection to service; a procedure was devised for them in the Second World War and with adaptations, it continues.

===United States===
{{Main|Conscientious objection in the United States}}

{{see also|New York Draft Riots|Conscription in the United States}}
There are currently legal provisions in the United States for recognizing conscientious objection, both through the [[Selective Service System]] and through the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]]. The United States recognizes religious and moral objections, but not selective objections. Conscientious objectors in the United States may perform either civilian work or noncombatant service in lieu of combatant military service.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.sss.gov/consobj |title=Conscientious Objection and Alternative Service |website=Selective Service System |access-date=2017-05-01 |archive-date=2017-04-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170427014446/https://www.sss.gov/consobj |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Historically, conscientious objectors have been persecuted in the United States. After the Selective Service System was founded during [[World War I]], such persecutions decreased in frequency, and recognition for conscientious objectors grew.{{Citation needed|date=May 2017}}

===Other countries===
As of 2005, conscientious objectors in several countries may serve as field paramedics in the army (although some do not consider this a genuine alternative, as they feel it merely helps to make war more humane instead of preventing it). Alternatively, they may serve without arms, although this, too, has its problems. In certain European countries such as [[Austria]], Greece and [[Switzerland]], there is the option of performing an alternative civilian service, subject to the review of a written application or after a hearing about the state of conscience. In Greece, the alternative civilian service is twice as long as the corresponding military service; in Austria ''[[Zivildienst in Austria|Zivildienst]]'' is one-third times longer, the Swiss ''[[Swiss Civilian Service|Zivildienst]]'' is one and one-half times longer than military service. In 2005, the Swiss parliament considered whether willingness to serve one and a half times longer than an army recruit was sufficient proof of sincerity, citing that the cost of judging the state of conscience of a few thousand men per year was too great.