human rights may be adapted or limited under specific conditions and situations. Several factors may be taken into account when adapting human rights standards to the armed forces: 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 can, 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, e.g., where personnel live in barracks. These special factors, distinctive to life in the armed forces, confirm the need for placing limitations on the human rights of armed forces personnel. Box 3.1 The importance of Ensuring Human Rights in the Armed Forces 1. By virtue of being citizens, members of the armed forces should enjoy the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as other citizens. 2. Respect for the human rights of members of armed forces contributes to a military that is firmly integrated in 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 members of armed forces against misuse and oppression by the government or army commanders. 5. Modern-day peacekeeping 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 underlie them. Differences in the ways that states choose to limit the human rights of their soldiers will depend on the aforementioned factors. These differences are rooted in the perception of the wider role and position of the armed forces in society. When answering the question “How different should the military be?”, some take the view that the military is a unique institution entirely different from civilian institutions. This uniqueness is imperative for militaries of all times and all countries, as it is 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, is dedicated to duty, country, and honour. Contrary to this position, other commentators take the view that the distinctiveness of the military is only of relative importance because the military was subject to “civilianizing” trends in the 20th century as a result of political, legal, cultural, technological, and economic pressures from society.13 Therefore, the military profession of today is the result of broader transformations in society. The effect of these transformations 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.14 According to the institution model, soldiers’ human rights will be greatly restricted because the military profession 13  Cf. Bernard Boene, “How Unique Should the Military Be? A Review of Representative Literature and Outline of a Synthetic Formulation”, European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1990. 14  Charles Moskos, “From Institution to Occupation: Trends in Military Organization”, Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 4, No. 1, Fall 1977; Charles Moskos, John Allen Williams, and David Segal (eds.), The Post-modern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 23 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel