Political Obligation and Military Service in Three Countries

Abstract

Although questions of political obligation have been much discussed by scholars, little attention has been paid to moral reasons advanced by actual states to justify the compliance of their subjects. We examine the `self-image of the state' through Supreme Court decisions in the USA, Germany, and Israel. Because moral reasons are expressed especially clearly in cases regarding obligations to provide military service, we focus on these. In spite of their important constitutional and judicial differences, the three states support military obligations along similar lines, though with some differences. In all three countries, appeal is made to obligations of reciprocity. Individuals must serve in order to provide the important benefit of defense. This `service conception' of political obligation accords norms of fairness or equality a central role, in order to justify the service of particular individuals. Reasons for less emphasis on fairness in Israeli cases are examined, while we claim that the overall similarities of the three countries provide some measure of indirect support to a theory of political obligation based on the principle of fairness.

Untitled

“…Such conviction orders conscience to affirm one's freedom in valuing self-worth, faith and respect for other's opinion in an outright intuition at the consciousness level. An intuition is a form of conviction that may presage the insightful moment of ''feeling of knowing'' or ''tip of the tongue'' phenomenon (Klosko et al, 2003). It is a judgment for a given course of action that comes to mind with an aura or conviction of rightness or plausibility that offers potential guidance for individual judgment and decision making anchored on human choice (Hodgkinson et al, 2009).…”

“…These self-directedness and trajectories guide the mediator to mediate conflict employing conviction and affirmation as essential power in keeping with the idea of wide reflective equilibrium and judicial opinions. Wide reflective equilibrium attempts to produce affirmation of the mind and a conviction of the heart that sets actions under the moral principles of what is good, beneficial and what one ought to do (Klosko et al, 2003).This is also similar to what Dahbour (2003) kept emphasized that to attain reflective equilibrium it must be grounded on affirmation originated as a notion of individual's freedom to determine the conditions of his own life characterized by shift of concern from 'personhood' to 'peoplehood' or self-determination. Each individual has to become aware of his choices based on what his mind tells and what his heart dictates (Gratton and Ghoshal, 2003).…”