Military Service as an Obligation to State

Military service is an unfair obligation to place upon citizens and incorporates the notion of moral obligation, in the form of Military Service, to discern the relationship between the State, under whose authority the military operates, to that of its Citizens. The answer will differ greatly if asked from either side of the debate therefore this essay attempts to outline the argument 'against' the question which is pertinent to the State and compare it to the 'for' argument which would be predominantly that of the citizen. Military service is an issue which both sides recognize as being important to overall security, however, forced conscription is often seen as a violation of rights, which according to Giddens is granted to every citizen.

The study shall examine the historic and modern day interpretations of Citizen- State organization whilst incorporating Weber's concept of nationalism in opposition to Giddens' definition of citizen. Nationalism, prompted by the citizens' rights, duties and migration is discussed on the basis "of ethnic, linguistic, or cultural affinity, perceive themselves to be members of the same group." (Giddens, p.311, 1995) Thus, using modern and historic examples of political situations within various States and their ideological beliefs, the essay shall attempt to show how military service ultimately affects the Citizen-State relationship and how it is viewed as both an unfair obligation and a duty.

Next, the essay will examine the question from the point of view of the citizen and elaborate on the methods of averting unfair obligations within modern political boundaries. The possibility of opposition and overturn of unfair obligations is an option that is granted and protected by the State and thus provides a valuable route by which the citizen can rebel against any unfair obligation they feel encumbered by.

Lastly, international institutions superseding national structure in a modern age alongside universal Human Rights overriding national laws and institutions has also afforded more to the citizen in regulating the actions of the State. Globalization and the expansion of the European Union have particularly delegated more power to the citizen not only to change obligations, which are enforceable, but also to challenge the objectives and actions of the State to a very high degree.

The State, or "a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" (Taylor, p196, 1996) imposes many obligations upon its citizens, which, in a democracy, will always appear unfair to a certain proportion of the populace. Should the alternate be asked, (i.e. Is it unfair the State needs to recruit an army?) many of those within the State bodies would argue that instead of taking national security for granted people should be queuing up to help defend their homeland. Military service is an obligation placed on both the male and female citizens of Israel and beneficial to illustrate how military service is in fact a fair obligation from the point f view of the State.

The Citizen-State relationship in Israel is not unique, however, constant turmoil and a small population has invoked enormous protectionist sentiment from the population. It can be argued that the State has in turn used this to continuously promote its policy of conscription and refresh the military forces so as to be ready and able to defend the mere existence of their nation. In this situation a citizen that did believe military service to be unfair obligation would likely be in a minority and would be ostracized by a great deal of the public as his loyalty to the nation would be under question as is currently the case with many Israeli pilots who are refusing to fly. Thus, the Citizen and State work together for the overall protection of both parties and although the people may question whether or not conscription is fair there is no better modern illustration of where an unfair obligation by the State may be identified, yet accepted as unfair but necessary by the citizen.

The realpolitik paradigm, supported by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, provides theoretical backing to the above argument and is based on the fundamental existence and endurance of the State. The paradigm is centered on a nation whose sole purpose is national survival and the acquisition of power through a rooted responsibility to advance and protect the nation at all costs. (Kegley, p28, 1999) Israel, an illustration of what is meant by a Hobbesian state of nature (Bull, p253, 1995), demonstrates the State emphasizing to the citizen that ethical preferences are of no importance, rather self-interest of the State is what is of paramount importance in order for the citizen to remain living under a self determined rule. According to Max Weber, once citizens consent (i.e. through public vote) to the authority of the State, the State then has a "more effective form of power" (Taylor, p192, 1996) that is recognized as legitimate. Thus, a State such as Israel, would not regard military service as necessarily fair ethically but give precedence to the serious issue of national security and continue to enforce this seemingly fair obligation upon its citizens until a new state is established by the power of its citizens or the threat to security is eradicated.

Modern day States, such as North Korea, that enforce conscription are treated as uncompromising aggressors which may deter invasion or attack by enemies, but does not make its citizens safe. At present, America is seen by many as aggressors in the continuing war on Iraq, however, those who would agree also have the power to retaliate against what it see as an illegitimate force. American citizens are now at risk of not only domestic attacks but of personal aggression when abroad. This in turn provides the State with the prospect of political and economic stress which will prompt the citizen to feel as though military service is unfair owing to the fact that they are vulnerable at home and abroad as well a forced to fight for a system with which they do not agree. The State, in order to counteract the negative associations would thus rationalize conscription by pronouncing its people to be continuous victims to outside threats and although being seen as an aggressor may be detrimental to citizens it is vital to the survival of the State.

When considering the question from the point of view of the citizen, it is first crucial to identify what a citizen is. Giddens conceptualizes that "most of those living within the borders of the political system are 'Citizens', having common rights and duties, and knowing themselves to be part of a nation." (p311, 1995) Thus, citizens have both rights and duties which forms a pseudo contractual relationship between Citizen and State that the citizen acknowledges and acquiesces to as in doing so it is beneficial to all. Weber and Marx are both recognized for establishing the concept that citizens have both a national identity and a sense of nationalism, which is parallel to Giddens' rights and duties as 'nationalism' is defined as a 'transient' political creation or reaction of the people, whereas 'national identity' is a 'cultural universal' and recognized by all (Shaw, p47, 2000), which for the citizen also includes fundamental rights. Thus, the citizen enjoys his rights and is assured that any obligation imposed is fair which according to Giddens involves an "apparatus of government laying claim to specific territories, possessing formalized codes of law, and backed by the control of military force" (A. Giddens p. 311, 1995). Therefore, military service to the citizen in a modern context can be adverse to morality, but according to Giddens unreasonable obligations are monitored and enforced by the military. However, the State provides legal and political means by which a citizen can effect change, so from a practical point of view should the citizen feel the obligation of military service to be unfair it is within the rights of the citizen to either seek another 'national identity' or effect change through legitimate processes which are ultimately protected by the State and military they pertain to.

For the modern citizen Globalization has instigated a great deal of negativity against military and conflict whilst obliging the citizen to question the State that is being served and regulate its exertion of power. Should military service be an obligation, the citizen will consider those who issue orders and deviate from action should the actions not be in accordance with the sentiments of the populace. Since the end of the Second World War, NATO, the United Nations and the International Criminal Court have often superseded the State in convincing the citizen of what is fair and unfair. The citizen is now able to monitor the State by using internationally recognized standards of policy on combat, human rights and education, which, should the citizen revolt, will lead to the defeat of State policy.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau noted that "Man was born free and everywhere he is in chains" (Redhead, p127, 1995). This is the sentiment that has been echoed as the modern citizen inhabits an environment where Liberalism, or "emphasis on ethical principle over the pursuit of power and institutions" rather than force (Kegley, p25, 1999), has taken hold and gives a strong voice to citizens who feel unfairly obligated. In America, during the Vietnam War, a lack of political objective and public support lead to a large revolt against the State imposed draft. Many men fled the country and notably Mohammed Ali was imprisoned in 1967 (Remnick, p290, 1999) that led to massive anti-war/anti-draft sentiment. In a situation like this the citizen checks the State by submission to any obligation being withheld until the State demonstrates clear and legitimate objectives which recapture the citizen's consent. Thus, Rousseau's words have aided in effect the citizen's revolt against obligation, although sporadically successful, rebellion gives vent to those who are vehemently against unfair obligation and only poses a minor threat to the State's overall authority.

Although the State does not claim that democracy is the key to pleasing the entire population it is finding that the dissatisfied minority is growing due to factors, which are not particular to the State but are imported by those who legitimately gain citizenship. For example, Britain is a multicultural society composed of many differing ethnic heritages including a large Muslim population. At present seven prisoners held prisoner in Guantanamo Bay are British citizens and by right should be given a fair trial and treatment equal to the plane watchers who were arrested for spying in Greece in the early 2000's. If military service were to be an obligation on all British men upon reaching eighteen the State would find difficulty reassuring the Muslim community they were not at risk for unequal treatment that would make conscription appear exceedingly unfair and promote aggressive rebellion.

In the context of the European Union, migration is much more apparent to each Member State and is governed by law which is enforceable by a united superior court. Current law allows for any member of the European Union to reside and receive equal treatment to those native to the State allowing the citizen an easier route of escape. After compiling the results the 2000 Census, the papers were awash with the headline that one million men between the ages 18-24 had disappeared. This demonstrates that in a world where migration is not complicated keeping track of human movement was. Should a State go to war using a conscripted army one million men would be of invaluable benefit and greatly help in establishing authority.

Fundamentally the arguments for and against the fairness of military service will rarely be agreed upon. However, just as the State must work to the majority opinion, the citizen must convince the majority to revolt against change thus the relationship between State and citizen is overwhelmingly fair. In the case of North Korea, the obligation of military service may not appear unfair owing to the intense control exercised by the State that has dulled the citizens power to change and thus all succumb to the concept that the military service imposed upon them as being just and reasonable in order to allow for continued survival. Necessity for protection is one of the main factors that will eradicate the citizen's feeling of unfair obligation, but owing to the relatively small use of military forces at present by Western powers, citizens would see conscription as a waste and an unfair obligation to be burdened with. Should the State exist under constant threat to national security, as is the case in Israel, then the citizen is more likely to recognize their obligation is merely an assistance to the State in the protection of all citizens whilst at the same time the State gains more power. The State can also utilize the process of "Localization, a process which reverses the trend for Globalization by discriminating in favor of the local" (Himes, p27, 2000) to promote nationalism and support for the military obligation as a duty that is necessary and to the citizen's benefit.

Therefore, the obligation of military service is just to the State that has the burden and pseudo contractual obligation to protect the citizens as it is the most straightforward guarantee of armed forces. What the citizen has to his advantage is that owing to modern times, he is no longer dictated to and the relationship between citizen and State affords a great deal of power to the citizen. Citizens who feel the obligation of military service is unfair have been given methods and an obligation by its fellow citizens to be assured that whatever is carried out for the benefit if the State is done according to moral, legal and ethical standards which are continuing to evolve through the internationalism of law, sociology and politics. As citizens begin to feel as though the State that they are governed by is more internationally tainted the State will find difficulty in convincing the citizen of the necessity for conscription should international factors continue to infiltrate the judgments of the citizen and provide regulatory measures to which the State is subject.

Bibliography

BULL, H. (1995) The Anarchical Society: A study of Order in World Politics 2nd Edition London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

CHANDLER, D and I. BECKETT. (1994) The Oxford History of the British Army Oxford: Oxford University Press.

GIDDENS, A. (1995) Sociology Cambridge: Polity Press.

HINES, C. (2000) Localisation: A Global Manifesto London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

KEGLEY, C.W. and E.R. WITTKOPF (1999) World Politics: Trend and Transformation 7th Edition London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

REDHEAD, B. (1995) Plato to NATO: Studies in Political Thought London: Penguin Books Ltd.

REMNICK, D. (1999) King of the World: Muhammad Ali and the Rise of an American Hero London: Picador and Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

SHAW, M. (2000) Theory of the Global State: Globality as an Unfinished Revolution Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TAYLOR, P, J. RICHARDSON et al. (1996) Sociology in Focus Ormskirk: Causeway Press Limited.