Compendium of Standards, Good Practices and Recommendations and unions commonly work under two constraints. The first is that they may be limited to members of the armed forces, in order to counter the concern of outside influence, and will not be linked to other trade unions. Second, legal barriers may be imposed that forbid strikes or other forms of collective action that could disrupt operations or threaten security. Treating armed forces personnel as “citizens in uniform” recognizes that the military is drawn from, and is reflective of, its citizenry and society. One element of service personnel’s role as citizens is their use of technologies, including mobile phones and social media (discussed in detail in “Chapter 6: Freedom of Expression”). These technologies present multiple avenues for expressing discontent at conditions of service, posing potential risks to the military’s reputation, recruitment, discipline and even operational effectiveness. In such communication and information-rich environments, trade unions and associations establish a process for dialogue on the terms and conditions of service that is independent of the chain of command. In doing so, they provide an effective and human rights-compatible approach to adapting to these changing realities and mitigating the inherent risks involved. Moreover, the increasing professionalization of armed forces means that the military needs to compete effectively in the labour market in order to attract and retain high-quality personnel. Any conditions of service that make the armed forces less attractive as a career path will be scrutinized by potential candidates and communicated widely. It is, therefore, desirable for the armed forces to reappraise whether restrictions on freedom of association remain strictly necessary, and how ensuring their personnel’s enjoyment of this right can meet the evolving needs of a modern military. 109