Alternative Civilian Service in Russia during the Russian-Ukrainian War: Between Constitutional Guarantee, Mobilization Practice and International Legal Criticism

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study is a comprehensive historical, legal and human rights analysis of the institution of alternative (non-military) service in Russia in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war, to clarify the relationship between the constitutional guarantee of the right to replace military service with alternative civilian service, the mobilization practice of the Russian state and international legal criticism of violations of freedom of conscience. Particular attention is paid to identifying regulatory and practical barriers to access to alternative service after 2022, as well as analyzing specific cases of violations of the right to conscientious objection.

Methodology: The work uses general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, generalization, systematization, comparison), special legal methods (formal-legal, historical-legal, method of interpretation of legal norms), as well as case study elements to study specific cases of Russian applicants for alternative service. The source base is the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal legislation on alternative civilian service, materials of international human rights bodies, UN documents, analytical materials of the European Asylum Agency, as well as reports of human rights organizations and independent monitoring platforms on the practice of implementing this right in Russia.

Research Results: The article establishes that the Russian model of alternative (non-military) service retains formal constitutional recognition, but in practical terms is characterized by narrow access, a long term of service, significant discretion of draft boards, and the preservation of the possibility of such service in structures related to the armed forces. It is shown that after the start of the full-scale war against Ukraine and the announcement of mobilization in 2022, the contradiction between Article 59 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the current mobilization regulations sharply intensified: no clear and effective mechanism for access to alternative civilian service was created for mobilized reservists, and the legislative changes of November 2022 actually shifted the emphasis from the civilian alternative to non-military positions within the armed forces system. Separately, it has been established that international bodies and human rights organizations critically assess Russian practice as one that does not ensure the consistent implementation of freedom of conscience, and in some cases is accompanied by pressure, criminal prosecution and cruel treatment of conscientious objectors. The cases of Pavlo Mushumansky, Zakhar Asmalovsky and German Strelkov show that even in the presence of a constitutional guarantee, the implementation of the right to alternative service often depends not on the law as such, but on a long judicial appeal, administrative resistance and the applicant's willingness to withstand repressive pressure.

Theoretical Significance: The study reveals the Russian model of alternative service as an example of normative duality, in which the constitutional recognition of the right to freedom of conscience coexists with administrative and mobilization mechanisms of its actual narrowing. It is substantiated that in wartime conditions the institution of alternative service in Russia has transformed from a limited mechanism for the realization of beliefs into a sphere of increased legal risk, where freedom of conscience is increasingly subordinated to the logic of military mobilization.

Practical Significance: The results can be used to prepare comparative legal studies in the field of freedom of conscience and military duty, to assess the compliance of national legislation with international human rights standards, as well as to develop recommendations for the construction of an alternative civilian service that is non-punitive, not integrated into military structures and provides effective appeal mechanisms. The study findings are also important for human rights documentation of violations of the rights of conscientious objectors in authoritarian and military contexts.

Value of the Research: Дослідження демонструє, що в сучасній Росії право на альтернативну (невійськову) службу дедалі більше набуває декларативного характеру, а війна проти України стала каталізатором посилення розриву між конституційною гарантією та реальною практикою її застосування. Це дає підстави розглядати російський досвід не як модель захисту свободи совісті, а як приклад її формального визнання за одночасного системного обмеження в умовах мілітаризованої державної політики.

Type of Article: theoretical (historical-legal).