국제인권규범으로서의 양심적 병역거부권

From 2018 to 2020, it was a significant turning point period in Korea regarding the conscientious objection to military service. On June 28, 2018, the Constitutional Court found that the clause on the types of military service under the Military Service Act, which did not stipulate an alternative service for conscientious objectors, violated the freedom of conscience. The Constitutional Court decided that the provision did not conform to the Constitution and set the deadline for amendment legislation on the Military Service Act as December 31, 2019. On November 1, 2018, the Supreme Court changed its previous precedent and ruled that the objection to military service based on “true conscience” constitutes a “justifiable grounds” of Article 88 (1) of the Military Service Act. On December 31, 2019, the revision of the Military Service Act to establish “alternative service” as a new category of military service of Article 5 (1) of the Act was made and the Act on the Assignment and Performance of the Alternative Service was also enacted. On the same day, the Ministry of Justice granted special pardons to 1,879 conscientious objectors who had already been convicted of violating the Military Service Act before November 1, 2018. On October 26, 2020, 63 alternative service personnel who were included in the alternative service on the ground of freedom of conscience under the Act on the Assignment and Performance of the Alternative Service entered the Alternative Service Education Center for the first time. And they are currently doing their public service in prisons after three weeks education. The International human rights norms including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the recommendations made by various international human rights bodies have greatly influenced the introduction of alternative service for conscientious objectors in Korea. However, the conscientious objection was not accepted as an international human rights norm from the beginning, and the normative nature and content of the conscientious objection as an international human rights norm are still in the process of being formed. Below, I would like to examine the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the opinions/interpretations of the Human Rights Committee, and the resolutions of the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the United Nations Human Rights Council. And then I would like to summarize the results and grasp the meaning and content of the right to conscientious objection as an international human rights norm.