Historical Development of Conscientious Objection and its system: An Analysis from the Perspective of Aporia

Conscientious objectors have been regarded as deviating from the image of a “true citizen”, because they do not bear the obligation which the state required them to. But, by grasping military refusal from the perspective of aporia, it becomes clear that this perception is fundamentally wrong. A state should respect the inner freedom of individuals, then it cannot intervene in people’s conscience. Where religion or beliefs are concerned, an individual and a state can be seen as theoretically equal. Therefore, a state policy of conscription has inherently unavoidable serious aporia (dilemma/antinomy). There have been people who have tried to resolve aporia by refusing military service. Their behavior has contributed to the approval of the right of conscientious objection. At the same time, however, guarantee of this right means the internalization of conscientious objection within the conscription system. And it has also taken away opportunities to raise objection related to military service as aporias. Furthermore, nowadays the privatization of military is rapidly expanding. By being separated from the state in the form of a business contract, the state has succeeded in liberating itself from the aporia and obscuring its responsibility to protect its citizens. In the situation where it is said that “there is no aporia”, it is necessary to have clear eye to find which aporia is ignored and hidden.