The second approach is to make non-autonomous arrangements. Here, the state provides the legal machinery for representation of the interests of members of the armed forces, e.g., in bargaining over pay or negotiating changes to conditions of service, pensions, and so on. The formal position of these arrangements may be buttressed by a legal requirement that they be used before changes are made. A developed example of these arrangements is that of France, where the General Statute of the Military of 24 March 2005 prohibits members of the armed forces from joining professional associations, but the Higher Military Council (Conseil Supérieur de la Fonction Militaire, or CSFM) provides for participation in discussions concerning conditions of service.101 Created in 1990, the CSFM gives advice on questions related to the conditions of service and must be consulted if legislation or regulations are proposed that are related to these conditions. It is composed of members elected by the armed forces councils. The CSFM may deal with various topics, e.g., career development, transition to civilian life, welfare in the armed forces, pension reform, housing, and the conditions of international operations. An item may be put on the CSFM’s agenda by a majority of the members. Seven councils have been created at forces level covering: the army, the air force, the navy, the military constabulary, the medical corps, the procurement agency, and the energy agency. The members of the councils are picked randomly from among those members of relevant forces who stand for office. The councils have two functions: to study any question related to the conditions of service or to the organization of work in the forces; and to represent the viewpoint of forces personnel on the topics submitted to the CSFM. A similar approach is followed in Italy.102 As the name suggests, non-autonomous arrangements may suffer from the disadvantage that they are perceived to have less credibility or legitimacy in representing the interests of members of the armed forces owing to the fact that they are not created by the members themselves, but are imposed from above by the government. While this may make it easier for the armed forces themselves to consult them, the absence of democratic accountability to those whose interests they represent will necessarily also undermine their authority to speak on behalf of members of the armed forces. Box 9.2 Military Associations in Selected Countries Swedish Association of Military Officers (SAMO) • Founded in 1995, following the merger of two older unions: the Swedish Officers Association (Svenska Officersförbundet) and the National Association of Officers (Officerarnas Riksförbund); • It has around 9,500 officers of all ranks, from second lieutenants to generals/admirals; • SAMO is a member of the Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations; • It operates through the Public Employees’ Negotiation Council, a negotiation cartel for unions of employees working in the service of the government, county councils, or local authorities; • SAMO has concluded a series of agreements with the armed forces on matters concerning working time, travel and lodging regulations, the employment of officers in the reserve, employment of other categories of military personnel, and on international service; • Although it is not legally prohibited from calling a strike, SAMO has agreed, through a collective agreement of limited duration, not to use strike action. 101  See <http://www.defense.gouv.fr/csfm>. 102  See the Act on the Defence of Rights and Interests of Servicemen, January 1980. Also see Nesterov and Pruefert, op. cit., note 82, pp. 119-121. 71 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel