The "Truthfulness Standard" on One's Belief in Nonviolence: There's Room for Controversy

[경향신문]

Conscientious objectors on grounds of peaceful beliefs, Hong Jeong-hun (left) and Oh Gyeong-taek (third from left) hold a press conference on the court’s ruling on conscientious objectors in front of the Supreme Court on February 25. This day the Supreme Court supported the initial court rulings, which sentenced the two men to a year and six months in prison each, questioning the sincerity of their beliefs. Lee Suck-woo

On February 25, the Supreme Court announced mixed rulings on three men who refused their mandatory military service to uphold peaceful beliefs. Although they did not object on grounds of religion, they were still conscientious objectors who opposed war, which takes away the life of another person. The court recognized the truthfulness of one man’s conscience and acquitted him, but two men were sentenced to imprisonment after the court questioned the sincerity of their conscience.

This morning, a panel of Supreme Court justices (chief justice Lee Heung-gu) finalized the initial ruling, which acquitted A, charged for violating the Reserve Forces Act. This was the first time that the court acquitted a non-religious conscientious objector, who was not a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

A was prosecuted after refusing to take part in Reserve Forces training because of his non-religious belief against violence and the killing of human beings after he was honorably discharged from the military. In the first two trials, the court recognized the fact that A was alert to violence since he was a child, came to hold the belief that war, which takes the life of other people, could not be justified, and that he realized that the act of shooting a gun at another person went against his conscience despite that he had joined the military after persuasion from his mother. The Supreme Court announced, “Refusing Reserve Forces training and military mobilization training on grounds of one’s true conscience can be seen as a legitimate ground (for refusing military service) designated by law.”

That same day, another two panel of justices (chief justices Park Jung-hwa, Min You-sook) released a different ruling on Hong Jeong-hun and Oh Gyeong-taek, conscientious objectors on grounds of non-religious beliefs. They supported the original ruling, convicting the two men for refusing to carry out their mandatory military service. Hong was prosecuted for violating the Military Service Act after refusing his mandatory military service in December 2016, claiming, “I will resist the military, which internalizes violence, through nonviolent means.” Oh stood on trial for the same charge after declaring his refusal to perform his military service on June 27, 2018 arguing, “I cannot join a military that conducts operations and massacres people, and I will not hold a gun.” The two men were each sentenced to a year and six months in prison and appealed the court decision.

The Supreme Court did not recognize the sincerity of their conscience, which they argued was the grounds for their objection to military service. In the case of Hong, the Supreme Court said, “His objection to military service is mainly based on aversion to the authoritarian military culture rather than on nonviolence and pacifism and cannot be recognized as the grounds of a conscientious objector,” and supported the original court ruling. As for Oh, the court said, “He is not against all wars and the exercise of physical force, but holds the view that he can take part in wars or the exercise of force depending on the purpose, motive and situation,” and accepted the original ruling.

The Supreme Court stated that even when a person refuses to perform his mandatory military service for non-religious reasons, if the objection is based on true conscience, it can be accepted as legitimate grounds, but argued that in the case of these two men, “We cannot see this as a truthful conscience, in which the belief is deep and firm and sincere, as in the case of conscientious objectors.” In November 2018, when the en banc court of the Supreme Court recognized the conscientious objectors of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the court defined the conscience, which the Constitution aimed to protect, and said, “When determining whether an act is right or wrong, it is a desperate and specific conscience, a strong and sincere voice of the heart, which could lead to the destruction of one’s existential worth as a person if one did not act in a certain way.” The latest decision was made according to this definition.

Although the Supreme Court recognized non-religious conscientious objectors in the latest ruling, it failed to present clear criteria for the ruling. Supreme Court justices Kim So-young and Lee Ki-taik, who had opposed back then, released their opinion and criticized, “It (the majority opinion) narrowed the definition by adding ‘deep, firm and sincere belief’ as a condition for the conscience protected by the Constitution.” This day, the Supreme Court did not present a clear standard when announcing the ruling on Hong and Oh. Since non-religious conscientious objectors do not have any records of religious activities, which are accepted as objective information, they have to go through a more difficult process for the court to recognize the sincerity of their conscience.

This day, the Constitutional Court also made a decision on conscientious objectors. The Constitutional Court dismissed a claim that the article in the Reserve Forces Act, which stipulated punishment for the failure to take part in Reserve Forces training without legitimate grounds, violated the basic rights of a person who refused the training based on his conscience. The court said, “It is not an issue of whether the law complies with the Constitution, but a matter of the court’s decision.”