Paz-Fuchs, Amir and Sfard, Michael (2004) The fallacies of objection to selective conscientious objection. Israel Law Review, 36. pp. 111-143. ISSN 0021-2237

Preview

PDF - Published Version Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract

This paper critically analyzes the theoretical and pragmatic arguments raised against the refusal of individuals to serve in a specific military campaign that they view as immoral. The Israeli Supreme Court case of Zonshein v. Judge-Advocate General will serve as an axis of discussion.

Courts worldwide have accepted that a categorical distinction exists between universal and selective conscientious objection. The combination of the Zonshein decision and the accompanying academic debate presents the opportunity to reexamine the reasons that are offered to as support for distinguishing the two types of conscientious objection. Close scrutiny finds them wanting

Item Type:	Article
Schools and Departments:	School of Law, Politics and Sociology > Law
Subjects:	K Law
Depositing User:	Amir Paz-Fuchs
Date Deposited:	18 Sep 2013 07:28
Last Modified:	07 Mar 2017 15:08
URI:	http://srodev.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/46313

View download statistics for this item

📧 Request an update