Conflict And Coordination Between Freedom Of Religious Belief And Military Service Obligation

Different legal systems can not avoid the conflict between the freedom of religious belief and the obligation of military service,different countries and regions have different ways to deal with this problem.Germany and other European countries prescribe substitute military service in the constitution,the conscientious person can serve substitute military service.Although the United States does not prescribe substitute military service in the constitution,when the two have conflicts,in general,the citizens' military service obligations will be exempted to protect citizens' freedom of religious belief.Taiwan and South Korea choose military service obligations prior to freedom of religious belief,even if it will infringe citizens' freedom of religious belief.The European Court of Human Rights and The Commission on Human Rights do not recognize that citizens have the right to reject substitute military service,however,they convict that punishing a person who rejects substitute military service violates proportionality principle,this reflects the tendency to recognize this right indirectly.From a global point of view,Taiwan and South Korea's solution model is only a special case,it is the mainstream of the international community to allow conscientious objectors to serve substitute military service for religious belief.This paper studies that different legal system how to deal with this problem in order to provide reference for our country.At the same time,the author makes explanation of constitutionality of Article 3 of the Military Service Act,under the premise of not amending the law,the author tries to seek the legal interpretation of the constitutionality of Article 3 of the Military Service Act.This paper is divided into three chapters:The first chapter studies how to deal with this conflict in different legal system,laying the foundation for the interpretation of constitutionality of Article 3 of the Military Service Act.The second chapter studies the meaning of the freedom of religious belief and the nature of the obligation of military service,the freedom of religious belief includes both the freedom of inner belief and the freedom of external action and freedom of association,the duty of military service is not the basic obligation,but the obligation.Meanwhile,this paper studies the limits of freedom of religious belief from the principle of proportionality and makes a conclusion that forcing the conscientious objectors to serve the combat service will limit the freedom of religious belief,thus violating the principle of proportionality.The third chapter studies the concept of interpretation of constitutionality and the largest range of meaning of Article 3 of Military Service Act.At the same time,it analyzes that in the maximum scope of the article 3,which interpretation scheme will violate the freedom of religious belief,thus excluding suspected unconstitutional parts,then drawing the final interpretation conclusion.