In this blog post, we will examine the introduction and development of South Korea’s alternative service system and explore the necessity of such a system from the perspectives of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.
Why Is an Alternative Service System Necessary?
An alternative service system is a mechanism in countries with conscription that allows individuals who refuse military service due to religious or personal nonviolent beliefs to fulfill their national defense obligations by performing equivalent social service in lieu of military service. Many countries with conscription systems around the world operate various forms of alternative service, and South Korea, following a long period of public debate, currently implements an alternative service system for conscientious objectors.
Discussions regarding the introduction of an alternative service system have been ongoing since the 1970s and became a major topic of public debate in the 2000s. In 2004, National Assembly members Noh Hoi-chan and Im Jong-in submitted related bills to the National Assembly, and in 2007, the Ministry of National Defense announced a plan to allow alternative service for those refusing military service on religious grounds; however, this did not lead to actual implementation. Social debate continued thereafter, and following a 2018 Constitutional Court ruling declaring the existing system unconstitutional and subsequent legislative amendments, South Korea currently operates an alternative service system in which service is performed in correctional facilities.
Nevertheless, I believe that South Korea must continue to operate an alternative service system for conscientious objectors and further develop it in a more reasonable manner based on social consensus.
The reason lies in freedom, a fundamental right that every citizen should enjoy. Conscientious objectors refuse military service primarily due to religious beliefs or a commitment to nonviolence. They seek to uphold their convictions based on the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution, and these fundamental rights are values that must be respected in a democratic nation.
Refusal of military service based on religious beliefs has long been the subject of the greatest social controversy. A prime example is the followers of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In accordance with the teachings of the Bible, they practice nonviolence and refuse to bear arms. In the past, a significant number of them were punished for the crime of military service refusal, and most of South Korea’s prisoners for conscientious objection to military service fell into this category. Government statistics from that time also showed that the majority of those refusing military service did so on the grounds of religious belief.
Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution stipulates that “All citizens shall have freedom of religion.” As citizens of the Republic of Korea, individuals have the freedom to choose any religion, and having a religion includes the freedom to practice its doctrines. Therefore, considering the intent of the Constitution to guarantee freedom of religion, establishing a system that allows those for whom military service is difficult due to religious beliefs to fulfill their national defense obligations in alternative ways can be seen as consistent with the spirit of the Constitution.
Furthermore, Article 19 of the Constitution stipulates that “All citizens shall have freedom of conscience.” Conscientious objection to military service based on religious beliefs is mostly linked to pacifism, and freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are closely interrelated. Freedom of conscience refers to the freedom to determine right from wrong based on one’s own ethical and logical judgment. The formation of one’s conscience is a realm in which the state may not interfere under any circumstances, and the exercise of conscience must also be guaranteed to the fullest extent possible, provided it does not infringe upon the law or the public interest. Since alternative service is a system for fulfilling the duty of national defense in a different manner—rather than evading military service—it can be considered a practical alternative that allows the state to maintain its military service system while guaranteeing freedom of conscience and religion.
How should we view public opinion and the alternative service system?
One of the main arguments against introducing an alternative service system was public sentiment. In past opinion polls conducted by the Military Manpower Administration, the majority of respondents opposed allowing alternative service. However, in subsequent polls, support for introducing the alternative service system increased significantly, indicating a shift in public perception. Even recently, while public opinion varies depending on the timing of the survey and the wording of the questions, there has been a steady rise in support for recognizing alternative service itself—a shift from the past.
In the past, most conscientious objectors were Jehovah’s Witnesses, so this issue was often perceived as pertaining solely to a specific religion. However, over time, cases have emerged where individuals have refused military service based on their personal conscience and beliefs, regardless of religion. In particular, when Mr. Oh Tae-yang, a pacifist, declared his refusal to serve in 2001, the issue of conscientious objection rose to the forefront of public debate; subsequently, the perception began to spread that this was not a matter of a specific religion but rather a matter of fundamental rights and human rights.
Some may question whether freedom of religion or freedom of conscience can truly take precedence over the duty of national defense. However, such doubts often arise from a lack of understanding of the purpose of the alternative service system.
Article 39, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution stipulates that “All citizens shall bear the duty of national defense as prescribed by law.” Those who criticize conscientious objection to military service often assume that objectors merely assert their constitutional rights without fulfilling their national defense obligations. However, alternative service is a system that fulfills the duty of national defense by performing a form of service equivalent to military service. In other words, since it does not involve evading the duty of national defense but rather fulfilling it in a different manner, it can be viewed as a system that harmonizes fundamental rights with the obligation of military service.
Are Concerns About Weakening National Defense Legitimate?
Some people worry that the alternative service system will weaken national defense. They argue that if alternative service is introduced, not only those currently punished for military service refusal but also some individuals who would have performed military service under the existing system might choose alternative service, potentially leading to a decrease in the number of military personnel. In particular, given that South Korea remains in a state of ceasefire, concerns have been raised that such changes could negatively impact national defense capabilities.
However, it is difficult to conclude that the introduction of an alternative service system would directly lead to a weakening of national defense capabilities. The claim that the alternative service system would cause a decline in national defense capabilities is, after all, merely a concern; examining the examples of various countries that currently operate such systems confirms that the system itself does not necessarily imply a weakening of national defense capabilities.
Germany serves as a prime example. After World War II, Germany recognized the right to conscientious objection and implemented an alternative service system, institutionally establishing a variety of service models that included both military service and alternative service. Nevertheless, Germany maintained a high level of national defense capabilities at the time, and this was evaluated as a case where the operation of the alternative service system itself did not weaken national security. However, since Germany effectively suspended conscription in 2011 and transitioned to an all-volunteer force, it is appropriate to view the German case from that period as a historical example of alternative service.
Another case worth noting is Taiwan. Despite maintaining long-standing military tensions with China, Taiwan implemented an alternative service system during the restructuring of its military service system. At that time, the country streamlined its military structure by adjusting the size of the Army and, as a result, utilized the personnel released from military service in various public sectors through the alternative service system. This serves as an example demonstrating that an alternative service system does not necessarily lead to a weakening of national defense capabilities, even in countries with an unstable security environment. However, Taiwan’s military service system has undergone several reforms since then, and the current system differs in some respects from that of the past.
The alternative service system is necessary to guarantee citizens’ freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Of course, there may be various opinions and concerns regarding how the system is operated. However, a review of international examples confirms that an alternative service system does not necessarily lead to a weakening of national defense capabilities, and that through appropriate system design, it is possible to pursue both national security and the protection of fundamental rights.
Currently, South Korea already implements an alternative service system for conscientious objectors, and it is necessary to continue refining the system while maintaining a balanced consideration of the two values: the fairness of military service and the protection of fundamental rights.
