The Supreme Court chose duty over freedom when it upheld a decision by the lower court, which had sentenced a conscientious objector to one and a half years in prison. Among the 12 justices on the bench, only one issued a minority opinion, which said, "The freedom of conscience deserves greater respect than the duty for national defense when they are in conflict."
While granting the right of thought, conscience and religion, the Constitution demands that all citizens perform the duty of national defense under the conditions prescribed by law. But it has no reference to which of the two should be given supremacy when they are in conflict.
In upholding the lower court's ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court went against the 1998 U.N. resolution calling on states which had yet to permit conscientious objection to take measures to ensure that it was upheld in specific cases.
That was disappointing, not only to conscientious objectors, but also to many civic groups, which demanded conscientious objection be adopted in the nation's legal system.
It was not the first time for the highest court to rule against conscientious objection. "Guilty" decisions were made against those refusing to serve in the military for religious reasons back in 1969 and 1992.
This time, however, conscientious objectors had high expectations that the earlier decisions would be reversed, because in May a district court in Seoul acquitted three young men who had refused compulsory military service on the grounds of their religious convictions.
True, it is theoretically possible for the Constitutional Court, which is deliberating on a similar case, to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling. But legal experts say it is practically impossible, as many in the Constitutional Court are certain to share the highest court's majority opinion. In addition, it will take many years for the Supreme Court to deliberate on a similar case again, if it ever does.
But that does not necessarily mean that it is now impossible to make room for conscientious objection. On the contrary, the Supreme Court's decision will certainly prompt civic groups to put greater pressure on the administration and the political community to revise the military service law to legalize alternative service.
Indeed, six of the 12 justices, including the one who issued the minority opinion, wrote an additional opinion that it is necessary to make alternative service available.
It will not be too difficult to exclude conscientious objectors from active duty, given the fact that quite a few young men are already exempt from military service for various reasons, although they are judged to be physically or mentally fit. They include some engineering majors who are given civilian jobs as a form of alternative service.
Each year, about 600 young men, many of them Jehovah's Witnesses, reportedly choose to go to prison instead of bearing arms. To incarcerate them is to deny them a "legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion," as pointed out by the United Nations.
The administration and the political community are advised to pay attention to their plight and hasten to revise the military service law to permit them to carry out some form of alternative service.