in conventional combat but in roles analogous to policing, the case for restrictions on their rights for reasons of military discipline is substantially weakened. Second, the increasing use of multinational military task forces in these and other operations draws attention to differences in the working conditions and rights enjoyed by members of the armed forces in different states. Unless there are good reasons to justify such variations, the differences will inevitably impact the morale and effectiveness of those units enjoying fewer rights. In April 2006, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe affirmed the importance of ensuring that member states respect the human rights of members of the armed forces: [A]t a time when armies in many member states are seeing action in the same theatres of operation, the Assembly resolutely promotes shared principles to be used to guide army action and govern the conditions under which they discharge their duties. Members of the armed forces cannot be expected to respect humanitarian law and human rights in their operations unless respect for human rights is guaranteed within the army ranks. It is therefore essential that the Council of Europe’s efforts to lay down guidelines on human rights protection within the armed forces be accompanied by a policy in the member states of heightening human rights awareness among their own military personnel.28 The “citizens in uniform” approach mentioned above can be seen in relation to several of the most important civil and political rights under the ECHR: freedom of expression; the right to respect for private life, home and correspondence; freedom of thought, belief and conscience; and freedom of association. These are all qualified rights within the convention system, i.e., they are rights that states may restrict provided certain conditions are met. Limitations must be “in accordance with law” or “authorized by law” and “necessary in a democratic society” for one of a number of specified interests. The limitations most relevant to the armed forces are “in the interests of national security”, although on occasion “the prevention of disorder” and the protection of the “rights and freedoms of others” have also been cited. 29 The “citizens in uniform” approach is of relevance not only to armed forces with large numbers of conscripts. It also encapsulates an important more general fundamental point about the position of the armed forces in a democracy under the rule of law. By encour- Box 5.2 Citizens in Uniform: The Approach of the European Court of Human Rights The general approach can be seen in the case of Engel v. Netherlands (1976).29 “54. … the Convention applies in principle to members of the armed forces and not only to civilians. It specifies in Articles 1 and 14 that ‘everyone within (the) jurisdiction’ of the Contracting States is to enjoy ‘without discrimination’ the rights and freedoms set out in Section I. … “Nevertheless, when interpreting and applying the rules of the Convention in the present case, the Court must bear in mind the particular characteristics of military life and its effects on the situation of individual members of the armed forces.” 28  Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1742 (2006). See <http://assembly.coe.int/ Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/EREC1742.htm>. 29  Engel v. Netherlands, European Court of Human Rights, 8 August 1976, European Human Rights Reports, Vol. 1, 1979, p. 647. 34 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel