Table Of ContentT
a
k
e
m
u
r
a
Hitomi Takemura
1
International Human Right
toIn to Conscientious Objection
Mte
ilitrna
at
ry Siona to Military Service and
ervl H
iceum
aa
nn Individual Duties to Disobey
d R
Inig
dh
ividt to
u C Manifestly Illegal Orders
ao
l Dns
utcie
ien
s ttio
ou
Disos Ob
bje
ec
yt
Mio
n
a
n
if
e
s
t
ly
Ille
g
a
l O 1 23
r
d
e
r
s
International Human Right to Conscientious
Objection to Military Service and Individual
Duties to Disobey Manifestly Illegal Orders
Hitomi Takemura
International Human Right
to Conscientious Objection
to Military Service
and Individual Duties
to Disobey Manifestly
Illegal Orders
123
Dr.HitomiTakemura
[email protected]
ISBN978-3-540-70526-0 e-ISBN978-3-540-70527-7
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2008935625
(cid:2)c 2009Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright. Allrightsarereserved,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialis
concerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,
reproductiononmicrofilmorinanyotherway,andstorageindatabanks.Duplicationofthispublication
orpartsthereofispermitted onlyundertheprovisions oftheGermanCopyrightLawofSeptember9,
1965,initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer.Violationsare
liabletoprosecutionundertheGermanCopyrightLaw.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,etc.inthispublicationdoesnotimply,
evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevantprotectivelaws
andregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Coverdesign:WMXDesignGmbH,Heidelberg,Germany
Printedonacid-freepaper
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
springer.com
Preface
Thetaskofthisstudyliesinclarifyingtheeffortsofcontemporarypublicinterna-
tionallaw,acrossseveralcategories,inrelationtotherightsanddutiesofindividuals
totheinternationalcommunity.Individualcriminalaccountabilityisaninteresting
developmentof the international community, challenging a traditional framework
of public international law. At the same time, the argument whether individuals
maystandupandtakeactionagainsttheirowncountryonthebasisofinternational
obligationsandinternationalhumanrightsisalsoastimulatingtopicforpublicinter-
national law. It necessitates interdisciplinary research within public international
law.
Thereforethisstudywilltacklethisambitioustask,thoughnotexhaustively.Both
internationalcriminaljusticeandtherighttoconscientiousobjectionininternational
humanrightslawaredevelopingnotions.Aspirationstocreateaworldofpeaceand
stabilitymaycontributetothefurtherdevelopmentofthesetwonotions.Theimpor-
tancegiventotheindividualwithintheinternationalcommunityisattheheartofthis
study.Individualsshouldnotsit on the sidelines,shielded bytheir States; instead,
theyneedtotakeinternationallawseriouslyinthetwenty-firstcentury,when,like
it or not, the fearfully ambiguous word ‘globalisation’ is the word for our times
(Annan 2000, pp. 9–17). The right to conscientious objection under international
lawmaysometimesserveasameansofadvancingpeaceanddisarmament.Inthis
connection,thedutyofindividualstocontributetointernationalpeaceandsecurity
willbediscussedbymeansofexamininginternationalcriminallaw,specificallythe
issueofthedefenceofsuperiororders.
Therisingnumberofconscientiousobjectorsmaybeconsidereddomesticallyas
eitheraproblematicoranilluminatingphenomenonbymanysocieties.Thisstudy
aims to provide views to support the latter argument. In doing so, the issues are
studiedthroughthelensofpublicinternationallaw,especiallyinternationalhuman
rightslawandinternationalcriminallaw.Studiesofinternationalhumanrightslaw
ontheissue ofconscientiousobjectionandinternationalcriminallawonthe issue
of the defence of superior orders have guided this study in its ‘rights and duties’
approach.
v
vi Preface
Itcanbelogicallyclaimedthatifindividualshavethedutytodisobeymanifestly
illegalordersunderinternationalcriminallaw,thentheydonotneedtoclaimtheir
rightstodisobeymanifestlyillegalordersunderpublicinternationallaw.However,
therightanddutytodisobeymanifestlyillegalordersunderpublicinternationallaw
maynotnecessarilybea caseof‘either-or’,astherightsanddutiesofindividuals
under public internationallaw are often non-self-executingin the nationaldimen-
sion. Therefore the right and the duty of individuals to disobey manifestly illegal
ordersshouldsupplementeachothertostrengthentheirnormativeness.
In order to clarify the rights and the duties of individuals, the relationship
between the defence of superior orders and the right to conscientious objection
is discussed in Chap. 1, followed by a brief background of the phenomenon of
conscientiousobjection. Chapters2–4 deal with the aspect of the rightto disobey
manifestly unlawfulorders, though the argumentis not confined to selective con-
scientious objectors, who only object to participating in unlawfulwars and/or the
use of weapons.Rather, Chaps.2–4providea generalview of the rightto consci-
entiousobjectionin internationallaw, becauseits status underinternationallaw is
bynomeanscleareventoday.Chapter5looksatconscientiousobjectorsasasylum
seekersfromtheviewpointofinternationalrefugeelaw.Asopposedtotherightsof
individuals,Chap.6focusesonthedutyofindividualstodisobeymanifestlyillegal
orders.Therestrictionsonthedefenceofsuperiorordersandseveralotherhumani-
tariannormsimposedonindividualsarestudiedinviewoftherighttoconscientious
objection,discussedinChaps.2–4.
Japan,2008 HitomiTakemura
References
AnnanKA(2000)MillenniumReport:WethePeoples:TheRoleoftheUnitedNationsinthe21st
Century.UnitedNations,NewYork
Acknowledgments
Over the years, I have been assisted by a number of people in accomplishing my
doctoralstudyabroad.
First and foremost, I thank my supervisor Professor William A. Schabas and
theYoshidaScholarshipFoundationfortheirinvaluablesupport.ProfessorSchabas
alwaysshareshisenthusiasmforstudiesininternationalcriminallawwithstudents.
His wealth of knowledgeand sophistication have inspired my study. The Yoshida
ScholarshipFoundationhas providedme with generousassistance throughoutmy
studiesinGalway,Ireland.Withouttheirfinancialandemotionalsupport,mystudy
wouldneverhavebeenachieved.
I thank my thesis examiners, Dr. Vinodh Jaichand and Professor Kevin Boyle
ofEssexUniversity,fortheircommentsandsupports.TheIrishCentreforHuman
Rights of National University of Ireland, Galway, provided students with an out-
standing environmentsurrounded by friendly staff and colleagues. I thank all the
Centre’sstaffandcolleagueswhosharedacademicinterestsininternationalcriminal
lawandhumanrights.
IthankmysupervisorsinJapan,ProfessorTetsuoSatoofHitotsubashiUniversity
and Professor Sonoko Nishitateno of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Their
encouragementhaskeptmemotivatedandhasguidedmetowardsacademics.
Many people have provided English language editing assistance from time to
time.RoisinBurkeandJenniferSchuetze-Reymannwerealwaysofgreathelp.
My life in Galway would hardly have been so comfortable and joyful without
suchaniceflatmate,ChristinaCollinsandherfriendJohnMaher.Mythanksespe-
cially go to friends who visited me in Galway from abroad and shared Guinness
tocheermeup.AndleebChaudhryhasbeenararefriend.Isincerelythankeveryone
IencounteredinGalwayfromthebottomofmyheart.
Lastbutnotleast,I thankmyparents,NobushigeandMasa Takemurafortheir
love and kindness. My sister, Kanae, and my now-deceased grandmothers, Kazu
TakemuraandTsuneIwano,haveofferedmentalsustenance.
vii
Contents
1 Introduction................................................... 1
1.1 RighttoConscientiousObjectionandDutytoDisobey ........... 1
1.2 RoadtoPeace:ConscientiousObjectionasaMeansofAchieving
Peace..................................................... 4
1.3 CrisisofConscription:DeclineoftheAuthorityofStates ......... 8
1.4 VolunteerSoldiersandConscientiousObjection................. 9
1.5 AbsoluteConscientiousObjectionandSelectiveConscientious
Objection ................................................. 10
1.6 ConscientiousObjectionandCivilDisobedience ................ 12
1.6.1 GeneralDistinction .................................. 12
1.6.2 LegalPhilosophers’View ............................. 13
1.6.3 ObjectionstoConscientiousObjection .................. 13
1.7 ConcludingRemarks........................................ 14
References..................................................... 15
2 RighttoConscientiousObjectionintheUnitedNationsHuman
RightsLaw.................................................... 19
2.1 UnitedNationsHumanRightsNorms.......................... 20
2.1.1 ActivitiesBefore1970................................ 21
2.1.2 TravauxPre´paratoiresoftheInternationalCovenant
onCivilandPoliticalRights ........................... 22
2.1.3 NGOInitiativesfromtheLate60s ...................... 29
2.1.4 DiscussionBeforetheThirdCommittee
oftheGeneralAssemblyin1970 ....................... 30
2.1.5 Resolution11B(XXVII)of1971bytheCommission
onHumanRights .................................... 33
2.1.6 TheSecretary-General’sActivitiesFollowing
Resolution11B(XXVII)of1971 ...................... 38
2.1.7 GeneralAssemblyResolution33/165of1978 ............ 40
2.1.8 Report on Conscientious Objection Prepared
bytheSub-Commissionof1984........................ 42
ix
x Contents
2.1.9 Draft Resolution of 1985 by the Commission
onHumanRights .................................... 45
2.1.10 Resolution1987/46bytheCommissiononHumanRights.. 48
2.1.11 Resolution1989/59bytheCommissiononHumanRights.. 50
2.1.12 ConventionontheRightsoftheChildof1989............ 51
2.1.13 ReportbySpecialRapporteurof1992................... 55
2.1.14 Resolution1993/84bytheCommissiononHumanRights.. 55
2.1.15 GeneralCommentbytheHumanRightsCommittee
of1993............................................. 56
2.1.16 ResolutionsFollowingResolution1993/84
oftheCommissiononHumanRights ................... 61
2.1.17 StudyoftheIssueoftheAdministrationofJustice
ThroughMilitaryTribunalsof2005..................... 66
2.2 EnforcementMechanism .................................... 67
2.2.1 IndividualCommunicationandEvolvingInterpretation
oftheCovenant...................................... 67
2.2.2 Yeo-BumYoonandMyung-JinChoiVRepublicofKorea.. 70
2.2.3 ConsiderationofReportsSubmittedbyStatesParties
UnderArticle40oftheCovenant....................... 74
2.3 ConcludingRemarks........................................ 80
References..................................................... 81
3 RighttoConscientiousObjectioninEuropeanHumanRightsLaw .. 83
3.1 EuropeanHumanRightsNorms .............................. 84
3.1.1 DraftingtheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights ...... 84
3.1.2 Silenceofthe TravauxPre´paratoiresoftheEuropean
Convention on Human Rights with Respect to
ConscientiousObjection .............................. 88
3.1.3 ResolutionsbytheCouncilofEurope ................... 88
3.1.4 CharterofFundamentalRightsofEuropeanUnion ........ 94
3.2 The European Commission of Human Rights
andtheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights ...................... 95
3.2.1 EarlierIndividualPetitions ............................ 96
3.2.2 IndividualPetitionsArguingViolationofProhibition
ofDiscrimination ....................................100
3.2.3 IndividualPetitionsArguingViolationofProhibition
ofDegradingTreatment...............................101
3.2.4 EuropeanCommitteeofSocialRights...................103
3.3 CommissionerforHumanRightsoftheCouncilofEurope........104
3.3.1 GreekPractice.......................................105
3.3.2 FinnishPractice .....................................106
3.4 ConcludingRemarks........................................109
References.....................................................109
Contents xi
4 Inter-AmericanHumanRightsLaw..............................111
4.1 Inter-AmericanHumanRightsInstitutions–anUnsettledPosition .112
4.2 ConcludingRemarks........................................118
References.....................................................118
5 InternationalRefugeeLawandConscientiousObjection ...........119
5.1 ConscientiousObjectorasAsylumSeeker......................119
5.2 ThresholdsforConscientiousObjectorasAsylumSeeker.........121
5.3 StatePractice ..............................................124
5.3.1 TheKrotovCase.....................................125
5.3.2 HinzmanCase.......................................127
5.3.3 Position of Refugee Status Appeals Authority
ofNewZealand .....................................129
5.3.4 IranianSelectiveConscientiousObjectorinTimeofPeace..130
5.3.5 EuropeanUnionQualificationDirective .................131
5.4 ConscientiousObjectiontoMilitaryServiceItselfasGround
forAsylum................................................133
5.5 ConcludingRemarks........................................133
References.....................................................135
6 Defence of Superior Orders: Duties of Individuals to Disobey
ManifestlyIllegalOrdersunderInternationalLaw ................137
6.1 DefenceofSuperiorOrdersandDutiesofIndividuals ............137
6.2 HistoryofDefenceofSuperiorOrdersUnderInternationalLaw ...139
6.3 MainTheoriesoftheDefenceofSuperiorOrders................155
6.3.1 DoctrineofRespondeatSuperior .......................155
6.3.2 DoctrineofAbsoluteLiability .........................156
6.3.3 ConditionalLiabilityApproach:ManifestIllegality
Principle ...........................................157
6.3.4 DoctrineofMitigationFactor ..........................158
6.3.5 DoctrineofJustificationandExcuse ....................159
6.3.6 ObservationonTheoriesofDefenceofSuperiorOrders....161
6.4 CriminalityandIllegalityofInternationalWrongfulAct ..........163
6.4.1 Genocide...........................................163
6.4.2 Apartheid...........................................168
6.4.3 Aggression .........................................173
6.4.4 CrimesAgainstHumanityandWarCrimes...............176
6.5 ConcludingObservation.....................................178
References.....................................................179
7 ImpactsofJusAdBellumandJusInBelloonRightsandDuties
ofIndividualstoDisobeyManifestlyIllegalOrders ................183
7.1 OntheDistinctionbetweenJusAdBellumandJusInBello .......183
7.2 HistoryofJusAdBellumandJusInBello ......................185
7.3 RelationshipsbetweenJusAdBellumandJusInBello............187
