Sancar, MithatMızrak, Dilan2022-03-312022-03-312008http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12575/78197The fact that, a human being should act according to the convictions of his/her conscience; furthermore, because of constituting one of the indispensable rights, this act should be thought natural is accepted by most of the people. But when the subject is to think that, an obligation enforced by state is contrary to conscientious beliefs, aforementioned point of view radically changes. Modern state, inevitably founded as a result of wars, regarded the necessity of establishing army and compulsory military service for the purpose of protecting itself. Consequently, refusing the obligation to compulsory military service because of profound convictions is one of the fields bringing two clashing values face to face to a great degree: These are liberty and security. It is therefore, today conscientious objection still has no absolute legal recognition in domestic laws or international area. Any of the internationally binding conventions explicitly refers to a right to conscientious objection to compulsory military service and again, the international bodies vested with judicial power which are expected to answer the question whether the right to conscientious objection to military service can be involved in freedom of thought, conscience and religion prefer to let the subject decided in domestic law of each state. The states recognizing the right to conscientious objection limit the acknowledgement for particular motives, particular forms relevant to the scope of convictions and as a result for particular applications. At this point, if the political path fallowed by Turkey is examined, it shall be realised that the compulsory military service still remains; furthermore, issues relating to military service and army are accepted `sensitive? and a strict manner is exposed when the subject is conscientious objection.trKamu YönetimimasterThesis