By Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
In a world increasingly polarized by war, nationalism, and military compulsion, the right to say no—to dissent in uniform, to refuse to kill—is a profoundly human and deeply legal act. Conscientious objection to military service is not just a matter of personal belief. It is recognized in international law and is central to the very principles of human dignity and the laws of war.
A Legal Right Grounded in Human Conscience
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) affirms in Article 18 the right to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” This right was given greater legal force by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966), whose Article 18 has been interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee to include conscientious objection to military service.
The UN Commission on Human Rights’s 1998 resolution explicitly recognized conscientious objection as a legitimate act of conscience and urged states to accommodate it. In Europe, the landmark European Court of Human Rights decision in Bayatyan v. Armenia (2011) affirmed that Article 9 of the European Convention (protecting freedom of conscience and religion) extends to military refusal based on deeply held beliefs.
In short, international law does not merely allow for conscientious objection—it protects it.
The Case of Muhammad Ali: Conscience in the Ring
Perhaps no single individual embodies this moral stance better than Muhammad Ali, who refused to be drafted into the Vietnam War in 1967 on religious and moral grounds as a member of the Nation of Islam. He was convicted of draft evasion, stripped of his heavyweight title, and threatened with years in prison.
But in 1971, in Clay v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction, acknowledging the sincerity of his beliefs. It was a landmark affirmation of conscience over compulsion, and it left a legacy far beyond the boxing ring.
Iraq War Resisters: A Moral Exodus
Fast forward to the Iraq War. Numerous U.S. soldiers, believing the invasion to be unjust and illegal, refused deployment and fled to Canada, seeking asylum. Their moral arguments mirrored Ali’s—refusal to fight in what they saw as an illegal war.
However, Canada denied most of them refugee status, insisting that desertion was not, in itself, a basis for asylum unless the individual would be compelled to commit war crimes. Figures like Jeremy Hinzman became international symbols of the moral and legal limits of dissent in democracies.
Israel and Iran: Two Systems, One Struggle
In Israel, limited recognition of conscientious objection exists—primarily for religious objectors. But selective objection, such as refusal to serve in the occupied Palestinian territories or carry out bombings, is not recognized.
In 2003, a group of 27 Israeli Air Force pilots—known as the “Pilots’ Letter” signatories—publicly refused to fly missions targeting Palestinian areas. They were punished but sparked an essential public debate about military ethics in a democratic society.
In contrast, Iran, a theocratic and authoritarian regime, does not recognize any form of conscientious objection. Refusal to serve or obey military orders—even on moral or religious grounds—is met with harsh penalties, including imprisonment or worse. While some Iranian pilots defected during the Iran–Iraq War, their acts were treated as political betrayals, not moral stands.
A Global Tradition of Refusal
History is full of those who paid the price for refusing to kill:
- In the Soviet Union, dissidents who opposed the war in Afghanistan were imprisoned or institutionalized.
- During both World Wars, British objectors were jailed or assigned to non-combatant roles.
- In South Korea, thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses were imprisoned for refusing compulsory service—until a 2018 Constitutional Court ruling forced reforms to allow for alternative service.
These examples underscore that the moral courage to disobey unjust orders is not new—but neither is it easy.
Refusing to Bomb Civilians: Legal and Moral Obligation
Can a soldier or pilot lawfully refuse to bomb civilians? Yes—and in fact, they are obligated to under international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court define the deliberate targeting of civilians as a war crime.
Soldiers who carry out such acts cannot invoke the defense of “just following orders”. Conversely, those who refuse such orders are protected, both morally and legally.
The Gap Between Law and Reality
And yet, legal recognition does not always translate into protection. In many parts of the world, political agendas, military obedience, and national security narratives override international norms. Objectors—whether American, Israeli, Russian, Iranian, or Palestinian—face isolation, imprisonment, or worse.
Still, the right to conscience remains a cornerstone of law and humanity. It is a principle rooted not just in treaties, but in the recognition that every human being has the right to refuse to kill when their conscience says no.
In an age when militarism often silences morality, the voice of the conscientious objector is not only necessary—it is sacred.
The author is President JKCHR – NGO in special consultative status with the United Nations