Human Rights of Armed Forces Personnel human rights may be adapted or limited under specific conditions and situations. Several factors may be considered when adapting human rights standards to the armed forces, including the nature of military discipline, the hierarchical organization of military ranks, the need to obey orders and the protection of morale. Unlike any other group of citizens, members of the armed forces may, in the course of their official duties, be called upon to kill other people and to sacrifice their own lives. Military life may involve serving under harsh or extreme conditions. Even in normal circumstances, there may be relatively little separation between private life and official duties, such as when personnel live in barracks. These special factors, distinctive from life in the armed forces, confirm the need to place limitations on the human rights of armed forces personnel. Box 1.1: The importance of respecting and protecting human rights in the armed forces 1. By virtue of being citizens, armed forces members should enjoy the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as other citizens. 2. Respect for the human rights of armed forces members contributes to a military that is firmly integrated into society. 3. Respect for human rights in the barracks prevents the military from being misused by the government and turned against the civilian population. 4. Respect for human rights in the barracks protects armed forces members against misuse and oppression by the government or army commanders. 5. Modern-day peace operations require armed forces personnel to integrate human rights work into their day-to-day operations. They will be better prepared for such activities if they themselves operate in an environment that respects and protects those rights and requires them to internalize the values that underpin them. Differences in the ways that states choose to limit the human rights of service personnel will depend on the abovementioned factors. These differences are rooted in the perception of the wider role and position of the armed forces in society. In answering the question “How different should the military be?”, some take the view that the military is a unique institution and entirely different from civilian institutions. This uniqueness is seen as the only way of preserving operational effectiveness. According to this view, a member of the armed forces is not an ordinary public servant but is someone who answers a calling and is dedicated to duty, country and honour. Contrary to this position, others take the view that the military’s distinctiveness is of only relative importance, owing to political, legal, cultural, technological and economic pressures that led the military to be “civilianized” in the 20th century.5 Therefore, today’s military is the result of broader transformations in society, the 5 20 See: Bernard Boene, “How Unique Should the Military Be? A Review of Representative Literature and