Conscientious objection in national and International Law

States show different approach about conscientious objection in terms of their economic, social, political and cultural reasons, national benefits, security and threat perception and doctrines ofdefense. Some states adopted conscription, recognise conscientious objection and compose alternative services for conscientious objector to substitute in compulsary military service.All the states being member of European Union recognise conscientious objection. 24 states in Council of Europe have adopted both compulsary military service and have recognised conscientious objection. There are only Turkiye and Azerbaijan that have not recognised conscientious objection among the members of Council of Europe.In Article 72 of Turkish Constitution, indicated patriotic service not military service has been necessity for every body. This means that there is no constitutional problem to adopt conscientious objection. Nonetheless in Military Law, military service is a compulsary service for men being citizen of Turkish Republic. Furthermore in article 45 in Military Penal Code, conscientious objection is not an excuse for the actions that constitutes crime under Military Penal Code.Conscientious objection has started to raise as an issue in our Country, especially after the cases heard at national and international courts. Today under the international conventions and international institutions? decisions, there is no obligation to recognise conscientious objection and adopt substitute services. But, at least in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights?s violation decision about Ülke application, it is necessity to legislate one punishment for conscientious objectors and after execution of this punishment to be exempted from military service.