Human Rights of Armed Forces Personnel treaties and domestic law is examined, as are the conditions under which these rights can be limited under international law. Finally, the chapter deals with the issue of safeguards against breaches of human rights law. International Human Rights Standards The approach of treating members of the armed forces as “citizens in uniform” is longstanding in many domestic legal systems. This approach is a consequence of political changes that situate the role, form and function of the state in direct relationship to the rights and responsibilities of all citizens (including members of the armed forces) and is founded on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Viewing armed forces personnel as “citizens in uniform” requires that service personnel be, so far as is consistent with military life, accorded the same civil, labour and constitutional rights of other citizens. This approach was encapsulated by United States Chief Justice Earl Warren as recognizing that “our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes.”41 Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that “Article 10 [ECHR] does not stop at the gates of army barracks”, while further acknowledging that restrictions are necessary for military discipline “as the proper functioning of an army is hardly imaginable without legal rules designed to prevent servicemen from undermining it.”42 Viewing armed forces personnel as citizens in uniform recognizes that the military is drawn from, and reflective of, a country’s citizenry and society. Acknowledging that the military cannot be insulated from wider societal, cultural or legal developments embeds the military within society. It also supports operational capacities by bolstering public and political support for the military and its institutions. Furthermore, the UN Security Council increasingly defines instability in human rights terms.43 Stabilization mandates, in particular, focus assistance on the political institutions of societies fractured by conflict, with the aim of re-establishing a culture of respect for human rights and the rule of law. Militaries possessing knowledge of human rights standards and a culture of respecting human rights are better equipped to operate in the complex contexts of today and within the multinational missions deployed to deal with them. Fundamental to all modern militaries is a shift in contemporary warfare from definitive industrialized battlefields to prolonged, indecisive, urbanized conflicts. Modern militaries 40 41 Earl Warren, “The Bill of Rights and the Military”, New York University Law Review, Vol. 37, 1962, pp. 181 and 188. 42 European Court of Human Rights, Grigoriades v. Greece (Application no. 24348/94, Grand Chamber judgment of 25 November 1997), para. 45; European Court of Human Rights, Rose v. Germany (Application no. 51001/07, decision of 14 September 2010); and European Court of Human Rights, Jokšas v. Lithuania (Application no. 25330/07, judgment of 12 November 2013), para. 70. 43 Security Council Report, “Human Rights and the Security Council – An Evolving Role”. 25 January 2016, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/research_ report_human_rights_january_2016.pdf.