{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011747430249632892, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011747430249632892, 'mean_word_length': 4.9004329004329, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Civil-Military Relations and the End of Conscription in France

LIKE MILITARY doctrine or weapons acquisition, military structure and systems of recruitment are critical components of national military policy and deeply affect the security of the state that employs them. Choice of military structure is also crucial for international security since it affects the probability and intensity of arms racing and of wars. Political science and international relations studies, however, have somewhat neglected the questions of why a state chooses the military format it does and why a state adopts or abandons conscription. Why and how does a state undergo major change in the way it recruit soldiers? What roles have civilians played in the process of abandoning conscription ? When and why does a state choose a new military format ? The French decision in 1996 to put an end to conscription and then to drastically change the military structure is a critical case. This was an epoch-making change in a country where conscription had played a major role in national identity and had been the basis of the armed forces since the levée en masse of 1793 and the 1798 loi Jourdan, which established the principle of conscription, and after a century of a system based on universal and compulsory military service, consecrated by a 1905 law. This is a major innovation