Conscientious Objection to Military Service: International Human Rights Law and the Case of Turkey

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-91
Author(s):  
Mine Yildirim
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Military Service ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Conscientious Objection ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe assessment of claims of conscientious objection to military service under freedom of religion or belief provisions has been an evolutive process in international human rights law. In Turkey, the right to conscientious objection to military service is not recognized, nor is there a specific punishment due for non-performance of military service on grounds of religious or philosophical beliefs. Military service is compulsory for every Turkish male citizen. The article in hand aims, firstly, to provide a survey on the status of the right to conscientious objection to military service in international human rights law and to propose a harmonizing interpretation that would allow for the evaluation of cases of conscientious objection under relevant provisions protecting freedom of religion or belief and secondly, to evaluate the Turkish legislation in relation to conscientious objection to military service and highlight human rights issues that arise due to a lack of legal regulation on conscientious objection to military service.

Part 1 Freedom of Religion or Belief, 1.3 The Right to Manifest One’s Religion or Belief

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bielefeldt Heiner, Prof ◽  
Ghanea Nazila, Dr ◽  
Wiener Michael, Dr
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right

This chapter emphasizes that the outer manifestations of freedom of religion or belief (forum externum) are not in any sense less important than the inner nucleus of a person’s religious or belief-related conviction (forum internum), even though only the latter is protected unconditionally under international human rights law. This chapter also discusses the largely overlapping elements of the right to manifest one’s religion or belief ‘in worship, observance, practice and teaching’. Furthermore, it analyses the implications of the religion-related reservations, declarations, and objections made by a number of States when signing, ratifying, or acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Legal Pluralism, Human Rights and the Right to Vote: The Case of the Noken System in Papua

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-286
Author(s):  
Ignatius Yordan Nugraha
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Local Population ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Pluralist

Abstract The goal of this article is to explore the clash between international human rights law and a legal pluralist framework in the case of the noken system and also to investigate potential solutions to the clash. Elections in Indonesia are generally founded on the principle of direct, universal, free, secret, honest and fair voting. There is a notable exception in the Province of Papua, where tribes in the Central Mountains area are following the noken system. Under this system, votes are allocated to the candidate(s) based on the decision of the big man or the consensus of the tribe. The Indonesian Constitutional Court has accepted this practice as reflecting the customs of the local population. However, this form of voting seems to be contrary to the right to vote under international human rights law, since article 25(b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that elections shall be held genuinely by universal suffrage and secret ballot to guarantee the free will of the electors. Consequently, the case of the noken system in Papua reflects an uneasy clash between a legal pluralist approach and universal human rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document