모두보기닫기
NHRCK expressed its opinion to the Speaker of the National Assembly on introduction of alternative civilian service
Date : 2018.09.27 00:00:00 Hits : 2343

 

o National Human Rights Commission of Korea released its opinion that with regard to the 4 partial amendment drafts to the Military Act and 1 draft legislation on alternative service, provisions on reasons for applying for the alternative service, institution and procedure on screening, types and period of service should conform to the international human rights standards.

 

o On June 28, the Constitutional Court held that Article 5 Section 1 of the Military Service Act is nonconforming to the Constitution for not stipulating alternative service options for conscientious objectors and thus infringes on objector’s freedom of conscientious. It required the said provision be amended until the end of 2019.

 

o Since then, 4 members of the National Assembly proposed amendment drafts regarding introduction of an alternative civilian service, and the NHRCK expressed its opinion that these drafts should take into consideration international human rights standards and its past recommendations.

 

o First, all the drafts state that the screening body on alternative service be established under the Military Manpower Administration or Ministry of National Defence and serving period be twice as long as that of the Army and Air Force. However, the UN Human Rights Committee and the former UN Commission on Human Rights emphasized that the screening regarding alternative service has to be executed by an independent and unbiased decision-making body and that body should not be under the military authority. NHRCK made the same recommendation in the past. Hence, the NHRCK concluded that it is desirable for an independent institution not related to conscription or military service be in charge of the screening, and the screening and re-screening has to be distinguished and member of the screening body should not be confined to personnel from specific department or area.

 

o In addition, the report on conscientious objection adopted by the UN Human Rights Council emphasized that the period of alternative service can be longer that the period of military service only when there is a rational and objective reason, and the alternative service should not be of punishment. However, most of the proposed drafts set out the period of alternative service that is twice as long as that of the Army and Air Force, making it a punishment. Hence, NHRCK concluded the period of the alternative service should not be longer than 1.5 times of other military services.

 

o The UN Human Rights Committee recommended for introduction of alternative service that is of civilian characteristics and not under the monitoring of the military. The NHRCK also recommended for an alternative service in areas related to maintaining social peace and order including relief activities, transport of patients, and fire-fighting.

 

o Meanwhile, the NHRCK currently commissioned a research to

  devise alternative service, and it plans to submit alternative policy to the government and National Assembly based on the result of the research.

 

File

확인

아니오