Dear Editor,
Denouncing the South Korean government's imprisonment of "conscientious objectors" to military service, Amnesty International has recently called for an immediate review of "alternative service" instead of uniformed conscription.
Hiroka Shoji, an East Asia researcher at the human rights group, furthers that the Korean government "violates" the rights of the imprisoned young men refusing mandatory military service for religious or philosophical reasons.
Still at war with the de facto nuclear North, South Korea conscripts all eligible young men pursuant to Article 37 Section 2 of Constitutional Law that limits citizens' rights for national security, order and welfare.
Attentive to the underprivileged, the Korean government in the meantime reserves alternative service for the mentally as well as physically disadvantaged after scrutinizing the applicants' qualifications.
Additionally, considering conscientious objectors for alternative service requires inventing another qualification review to select the fittest; the question of "objectivity" aside, social consensus, not a third party recommendation, should drive such a discussion.
Backed by Constitutional Law and unconsolidated social consensus to adopt alternative service for objectors, the Korean government "violates" no rights, at least not yet.
Denouncing the South Korean government's imprisonment of "conscientious objectors" to military service, Amnesty International has recently called for an immediate review of "alternative service" instead of uniformed conscription.
Hiroka Shoji, an East Asia researcher at the human rights group, furthers that the Korean government "violates" the rights of the imprisoned young men refusing mandatory military service for religious or philosophical reasons.
Still at war with the de facto nuclear North, South Korea conscripts all eligible young men pursuant to Article 37 Section 2 of Constitutional Law that limits citizens' rights for national security, order and welfare.
Attentive to the underprivileged, the Korean government in the meantime reserves alternative service for the mentally as well as physically disadvantaged after scrutinizing the applicants' qualifications.
Additionally, considering conscientious objectors for alternative service requires inventing another qualification review to select the fittest; the question of "objectivity" aside, social consensus, not a third party recommendation, should drive such a discussion.
Backed by Constitutional Law and unconsolidated social consensus to adopt alternative service for objectors, the Korean government "violates" no rights, at least not yet.
Choi Si-young, former deputy editor-in-chief of
Yonsei International Affairs Review, Yonsei University
![[INTERVIEW] Virtual K-pop group MAVE: is more than just pretty pixels](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/bcc387606cf7451c94f51a5978960c9f.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] 'Cobweb' director questions meaning of cinema](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/a029c9ea411f4aef94c6310f6a7c3c54.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Seoul's increased art market momentum brings Sotheby's back to Korea](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/3439cc1e2d744b85ab81fdcf6f045ba5.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
