Statement on the public hearing on the Defence Committee's Military Service Modernisation Act
James Waiscoat / unsplash
Statement on the public hearing on the draft law on the modernisation of military service - Military Service Modernisation Act (WDModG) of the Defence Committee on 10.11.2025
The German Federal Youth Council (DBJR) is the working group of youth organisations and state youth councils in Germany. It represents the interests of around six million young people who are involved in youth organisations and thus make a key contribution to democratic, social and civic stability in Germany. The positions and demands of the DBJR are based on democratically legitimised decisions made by young people through their youth associations and youth rings.
Classification and principle
The DBJR shares the view that Europe and Germany are facing growing security and defence policy challenges. The threat situation is complex - it includes not only external military risks, but also attacks on democratic institutions, disinformation, social division and the delegitimisation of civil society structures at home.
Complex threats require complex responses. Security in the 21st century goes far beyond military build-up capability. Anyone who wants to modernise defence must therefore not limit themselves to the "simplest solution" - access to young people - but must focus on long-term structures and distribute the responsibility and necessary contributions fairly across all generations. In the political debate, this "simplest solution" is often justified with the argument that young people "have to give something back" or that "something can be demanded of them". This narrative fails to recognise the reality: young people have long been making a significant contribution to the common good - in youth associations, voluntary services, rescue organisations or initiatives. They are already taking responsibility for society without having to be obliged to do so. Young people do not "owe" society anything just because they are young. The contribution to society, including in the form of commitment to the internal and external defence of democracy, addresses all age groups equally.
At the same time, there is a clear contradiction between the rhetoric and the reality of the proposed legislation. While the draft emphasises voluntariness, political justifications and formulations - such as the "availability" of young age groups - indicate that a mandatory structure is actually being prepared. This discrepancy and the resulting uncertainty for young people's personal life planning undermines trust. It gives the impression that state planning security is being placed above individual self-determination - and this in a phase of life that is already characterised by high social and personal pressures. Young people are currently under considerable pressure: they continue to bear the consequences of the pandemic, which has massively restricted their educational and development opportunities. Mental stress and worries about the future are increasing because global crises, climate change and economic developments are creating additional instability. In this complex present, in which stability and orientation are already rare, state intervention in individual life decisions weighs all the more heavily. The DBJR believes that a sustainable security architecture is based on three basic principles: Foresight, proportionality and intergenerational justice.
Foresight means understanding security and defence policy as a task for society as a whole with a long-term perspective. A far-sighted security architecture does not focus on short-term recruitment quotas or the revitalisation of outdated structures, but on the development of sustainable and resilient systems. This includes thinking about military, civilian and social resources together and dovetailing them in a meaningful way - from disaster control and public services to strengthening volunteering and voluntary services. Foresight also means that the state recognises all forms of commitment equally and does not create structural or social imbalances that favour individual forms of responsibility. A modern defence policy strengthens genuine volunteering instead of replacing it with implicit expectations or symbolic pressure. Finally, foresight means understanding trust and participation as the pillars of a resilient security culture: Only those who take young people seriously as partners and negotiate future prospects with them can build on their willingness to take responsibility.
Proportionality requires state security interests to be safeguarded in harmony with civil liberties, self-determination and social participation. It means that state action must be suitable, necessary and reasonable - and may only affect the fundamental rights of young people to the extent that it is absolutely necessary. In a liberal democracy, security must never be organised at the expense of freedom. Proportionality therefore means always weighing up the state's precautionary duties against individual rights to education, self-determination and freedom to organise their lives. Measures that treat young people primarily as an "available resource" or unilaterally interfere with their life planning contradict this principle.
Intergenerational justice means bearing responsibility for security, freedom and social cohesion in a spirit of solidarity across all age groups. Anyone making political decisions today must consider their consequences for future generations - not in the abstract, but in direct dialogue with young people. Genuine intergenerational justice makes the participation of young people a natural prerequisite for democratic decision-making processes. Intergenerational justice therefore also means not treating young people as disposable assets for security policy measures, but involving them as equal co-designers. Only if they are actively involved in the decisions that shape their future can a security order be created that strengthens trust in democracy and ensures social cohesion across generations.
Assessment of the proposed legislation
In the view of the DBJR, the present draft law falls short of the standards of a modern and intergenerational security architecture.
Mandatory declaration of readiness for young men (cf. Section 15a WPflG-E "Declaration of readiness")
The mandatory declaration of readiness for male conscripts born in 2008 or later represents a new form of state registration. At the request of the authorities, those affected must provide personal information on qualifications, physical fitness and their interest in military service. The supposedly "preparatory" nature of this measure disguises its actual effect: it creates pressure of expectation, institutionalises availability and in fact introduces a structure for possible later call-ups. It is particularly critical that the collection of data serves a dual purpose: on the one hand, it is intended to promote interest in military service and, on the other hand, to be used to prioritise call-ups in the event of tension or defence. There is a risk here that young people are not fully informed about the consequences of their statements.
§ Section 15a (5) of the draft allows the state to "re-request" the declaration of readiness without defining the period or reason. It remains unclear whether only qualifications will be updated or all information, including the basic willingness, will be collected again. According to the wording of the law, a complete new enquiry is to be assumed, which would be in the interests of young people so that they can reassess all information, in particular their possible declared interest in the Bundeswehr. In the DBJR's view, the wording of the law must make it clear that all information is collected anew each time a new request is made in order to ensure an actual possibility of correction. An explicit right to correct or revoke the information has not yet been provided for. Section 15a should therefore be supplemented by a legal right to correct the information at any time, for example by means of an online form at the Federal Office for Personnel Management.
The DBJR also emphasises that the decision to serve in the military must be free from economic pressure or state expectations. Access to education or career advancement must not be linked to military involvement. The assumption that the willingness of young people to volunteer for military service can be increased through a targeted approach, counselling and incentive systems is also contradictory in the view of the DBJR. Because if one believes that military service must be particularly advertised and made more attractive in order to be chosen voluntarily, this also means that this service is not of equal value or appealing enough on its own. If this argument were to be applied consistently to all forms of voluntary commitment, social, ecological or cultural services would have to be specifically promoted with the same means instead of thinking about compulsory service. In the draft, however, special support is given to military service, while comparatively little attention is paid to civic engagement.
If - contrary to the DBJR's demand - the law introduces a mandatory declaration of readiness, the DBJR therefore calls for young people to be provided with comprehensive and balanced information about all forms of commitment to the state and society as part of this process - explicitly including civilian and social opportunities, for example in voluntary services, civil protection or rescue services. Only on this basis can a self-determined and informed decision be made. At the same time, the DBJR would like to point out that such a duty to provide information would not result in actual equality between military and civilian services. Instead, genuine freedom of choice requires that voluntary services in particular be significantly better equipped and structurally strengthened. The same applies to other forms of volunteering.
In addition, the DBJR considers it essential that young people are also informed about their constitutionally guaranteed right to conscientious objection to military service and the relevant procedures as part of such a declaration of willingness in order to enable them to make a truly informed and self-determined decision.
The targeted focus on young age groups, who are apparently considered to be particularly available and flexible, remains worrying. The draft bill openly argues that this age group is "not yet sustainably established" - a formulation that reveals a problematic attitude: Young people are perceived as less worthy of protection, their life plans devalued as provisional. However, it is precisely in this phase of orientation that they are particularly vulnerable. State intervention during this time has a profound effect on individual decision-making and development processes and can have a lasting impact on biographies. It is therefore all the more important to protect young people in this phase of life from such interference and to recognise that the life plans and (professional) biographies of older population groups are also subject to processes of change and that a readiness survey would be just as necessary here. This would be an expression of intergenerational equality and recognition of the fact that young people are not responsible for the current security policy situation.
This raises the fundamental question of why only young people should provide information about their willingness to serve in the Bundeswehr. This one-sided focus is not based on security policy, but is politically convenient. Young people have little institutional clout to defend themselves against such measures. Even the right to vote, one of the most fundamental opportunities for political participation, has been withheld from them up to this point. If the draft law were instead to stipulate that older age groups must also make a corresponding declaration, the social debate on reasonableness, freedom and self-determination would presumably be completely different. The draft therefore utilises not the most effective option in terms of security policy, but the least politically controversial - and at the expense of a generation that is already structurally underrepresented.
Furthermore, this attitude not only contradicts the claim to self-determination and respect for young biographies - it is also exemplary of an adultist view of young people: Politically, the needs of young generations have been cut back for years, central issues for the future - from climate protection to the pension system to educational equity - remain unresolved. While real political answers to the life situations and prospects of young people have yet to be found, it is precisely this generation that is now being called upon to make up for structural shortcomings in the security sector.
It is also increasingly emphasised within the Bundeswehr itself that it is not just about recruiting "at the point of arms" - rather, there is a growing need for qualified specialists in areas such as logistics, infrastructure maintenance and technology. However, a sustainable build-up of capacities and so-called "backbone structures" cannot be realised solely through readiness enquiries among young people.
Authorisation to issue ordinances (Section 2a WPflG-E)
The DBJR strongly opposes the introduction of the authorisation to issue ordinances provided for in Section 2a WPflG-E. By introducing the power to issue ordinances, the draft bill enables the Federal Government, following approval by the Bundestag, to accelerate the process of reintroducing compulsory military service without a formal legislative procedure. At the same time, the requirements for issuing the ordinance are not sufficiently defined. As a result, a public debate on the so-called "defence policy situation" can be circumvented in the short term and planning security for young people is undermined.¹
Lack of participation of young people
Despite the far-reaching effects on young people, their perspectives have not been systematically included in the entire legislative process to date. There has simply been no dialogue with young people to date. Carrying out such a far-reaching intervention in their life planning and freedom rights without active participation contradicts fundamental principles of democratic participation. This legislative proposal by the federal government probably interferes more massively with young people's civil liberties and life plans than any other. In view of the massive impact on young people, this approach by the federal government is anti-participation and devalues young people as mere objects of state action.
In the political debate, the argument that young people themselves want a duty is repeatedly used - especially by adult decision-makers. This narrative is now often used to legitimise compulsory elements in this draft law or even the reintroduction of compulsory military service. However, it does not reflect the actual attitudes of young people.² At the same time, there is a clear generational effect: approval of compulsory military service increases with the age of those surveyed, while opposition is most pronounced among those who would potentially be affected themselves.³ At the same time, young people largely lack the opportunity to participate in military service.
At the same time, young people largely lack the opportunity to voice their concerns, needs and objections in the political debate. Until they reach the age of majority, they are excluded from the right to vote, and even beyond that, there are hardly any binding participation structures that include their perspectives in security or defence policy decision-making processes.
The Federal Ministry of Defence's handling of its own participation announcements has so far shown how clear this deficit is. At the end of 2024, the Ministry itself invited young people to a service design workshop in order to develop opportunities for consultative participation in the conception of a new military service. The format was expressly intended to involve "young people as experts on their own behalf" - but was cancelled at short notice and has not been replaced to date. Following massive pressure from youth organisations, an exchange is now taking place between Federal Minister Boris Pistorius and representatives from youth organisations. This step is to be welcomed in principle, but cannot be understood as a participation format in the strict sense - even when measured against the quality standards for child and youth participation⁴. It comes too late to influence key decisions and is limited to an exchange format. In the view of the DBJR, effective and genuine youth participation at eye level is needed before the formal legislative process, especially for legislative projects that have such an impact on the lives of young people.
The DBJR states: The draft law deeply interferes with young people's right to self-determination and creates structural conditions for a possible reactivation of compulsory military service - without an open, transparent and participatory social debate. The political involvement of those not yet entitled to vote remains inadequate. Young people are addressed politically when it comes to their willingness to be deployed - but have not yet been systematically involved when decisions are made about the conditions of this deployment.
Berlin, 03 November 2025
¹ An independent constitutional law expert opinion commissioned by Greenpeace Germany also points to considerable constitutional concerns. It comes to the conclusion that Section 2a WPflG-E could violate the proviso of the law and the requirement of certainty of the Basic Law. In particular, the unclear definition of a "defence policy situation" gives the federal government far-reaching scope for action without sufficient parliamentary control. According to the report, this threatens to undermine a central principle of the rule of law - the democratic legitimisation of serious encroachments on fundamental rights(https://www.greenpeace.de/publikationen/Rechtsgutachten_zum_neuen_Wehrpflichtgesetz.pdf ).
² A Forsa survey commissioned by Table.Media in September 2025 clearly shows that 63 per cent of 14-29-year-olds reject the reintroduction of compulsory military service - even in the event that the Bundeswehr does not recruit enough volunteers. Only 27 per cent are in favour of a general obligation for men and women, and a further 8 per cent for men only(https://cdn.table.media/assets/briefings/security/table.briefings-forsa-umdrage-neuer-wehrdienst-wasserzeichen.pdf).
³ https://de.statista.com/infografik/35048/umfrage-zur-wiedereinfuehrung-der-wehrpflicht-in-deutschland-nach-altersgruppen/; https://www.zdfheute.de/politik/deutschland/wehrpflicht-bundeswehr-politbarometer-junge-menschen-jugendliche-100.html; presse.wdr.de/plounge/tv/das_erste/2025/07/20250703_ard_deutschlandtrend_wehrpflicht.html
⁴ standards.jugendbeteiligung.de ;
Press contact
Deutscher Bundesjugendring
Matthias Starz
030/40040-412
presse@dbjr.de