Compendium of Standards, Good Practices and Recommendations effect of which is illustrated by the institution/occupation model. The underlying thesis of this model is that the military profession is shifting away from an institutional format to one that is similar to the occupational format of other professions in society. Increasingly, the military profession is becoming “just another job”, driven by financial incentives, job security and attractive working conditions, instead of a unique institution based on country, duty and honour.6 According to the institution model, soldiers’ human rights may be greatly restricted because the military profession cannot be compared with any other profession in society. According to the occupation model, however, service personnel may have the same rights as other citizens because of the commonalities between the military profession and other professions in society. It is imperative, however, that any restrictions satisfy several criteria. They should be rationally related to military needs and not merely the result of arbitrary practice or tradition. They should be firmly based upon law, preferably legislation that has been subject to considered democratic debate and lawful procedure. They should be proportionate, i.e., adapted in a nuanced way to the interests of the military, which would be compromised by the full exercise of human rights. Any restrictions on the rights of armed forces personnel that operate in a discriminatory fashion on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex or other criteria must be carefully scrutinized given their suspect nature and the requirement for clear justification. The onus to demonstrate the necessity of restricting the rights of armed forces personnel should firmly lie with the military. Human rights are not merely a matter of high-sounding aspirations on paper; they must also be fully implemented in daily practice in the armed forces. Human rights violations resulting from illegal practices (e.g. mistreatment of conscripts) are some of the most common violations occurring in the armed forces. Although laws and regulations prohibiting such practices often exist, it is their practical implementation that often proves most difficult. In many OSCE participating States, the mechanisms for protecting the rights of armed forces personnel remain inadequate. Even in states where laws and regulations have improved, they are often not respected at the practical level. The effective implementation of human rights is therefore crucial. This compendium emphasizes not only the role of national and international courts, but also other methods of investigating complaints concerning human rights violations and the sanctioning of violations, including military ombuds institutions. The first line of defence, however, has to come from within the armed forces. In particular, the protection of the human rights of their subordinates features among the key responsibilities of superior officers. Human rights education is crucial in raising awareness and creating a professional culture within the military that includes respect for human Outline of a Synthetic Formulation”, European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1990. 6 See: Charles Moskos, “From Institution to Occupation: Trends in Military Organization”, Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 4, No. 1, Fall 1977; and Charles Moskos, John Allen Williams and David Segal (eds.), The Post-modern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 21