Chapter 9 Military Unions and Associations Some countries have long-standing arrangements for members of the armed forces to join associations representing their interests. Several other states have granted this right in recent years. In a number of countries, however, the unionization of military personnel has been viewed as conflicting with the unique nature of the military and its role in maintaining national security and public order. Moreover, a distinction should be made between different models of association, e.g., professional associations, trade unions, and other informal mechanisms of consultation. The advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed below. There appears to be no internationally agreed definition of a trade union. The International Labour Organization Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise of 1948 refers instead to “workers’ organisations”, i.e., “any organisation of workers ... for furthering and defending the interests of workers”. The central question in the debate on military unions or associations is not what the body representing the interests of members of the armed forces is called but rather how to respect the rights of military personnel to the freedom of association and assembly while at the same time meeting the needs and legitimate concerns of the military, given its unique function. 1. Issues at Stake The freedom to associate with others is a fundamental right that is clearly recognized in the major human rights treaties, and this extends to the freedom to join professional bodies and trade unions. Collective action may involve public demonstrations or public statements representing the group interests of members of the armed forces, aspects that are covered in Chapter 8. Chapter 16 discusses specific issues related to working conditions. The focus of this chapter, however, is a series of questions concerned with the recognition of military associations and unions. Collective bodies can play a valuable role in representing their members’ interests, including protecting their human rights. Military associations or unions may promote the welfare of individual members by pursuing grievances on their behalf, represent their interests at different levels from that of the unit upwards, and consult or negotiate on collective conditions of service in the armed forces. They may also play a valuable role as intermediaries between the Ministry of Defence and armed forces personnel when issues such as restructuring the military are discussed. Where these associations exist, they vary in nature from country to country.82 Some major variations concern the extent to which they are autonomous, their links with external professional or union federations, and whether they are legally permitted to engage in industrial action. In countries such as Sweden or Germany, independent military associations exist that are financed by members’ fees and that employ their own advisory staff. In other countries, such as Bulgaria, finance comes from the Ministry of Defence. It is more common for associations to define themselves as bodies representing professional servicemen and -women rather than as military unions, although this is partly a consequence of 82  For a full survey, see V.S. Nesterov and A.D. Pruefert, Military Unionism: The Establishment of Professional Organisations/Trade Unions of Servicemen and their Present Position (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006). 65 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel