War imposes extremely difficult tasks on the State, but even in conditions of national defence, the limits of permissible coercion must remain subject to legal assessment
But there is another reality that is no less important: even during war, the State must not lose its legal form.
Under martial law, the legality of State action must not become weaker. It must become stronger. When law gives way to fear, force and administrative pressure, society begins to lose trust not only in individual officials, but in the very idea of justice.
Mobilization must not become a hunt for people. The service of a summons must not be replaced by physical coercion. Document checks must not turn into de facto detention without proper legal grounds. And the fulfilment of mobilization targets must not justify the humiliation of human dignity.
The State Established New Rules — and Must Follow Them Itself
In 2024, the legislature proposed a new model of relations between the State and citizens in the area of military registration and mobilization. The essence of this model was clear: persons liable for military service had to update their registration data within a defined period, while the State had to act through procedures established by law.
This was supposed to become a new balance between defence needs and human rights. The citizen informs the State where he is, provides updated data and remains within the legal field. The State, in turn, does not resort to chaotic or forceful methods, but uses a civilized mechanism of notification, summons, medical examination and decision-making in accordance with the law.
This is how a State governed by the rule of law must operate, even during war.
However, social conflict arises when the State first establishes rules, declares transparency and predictability, and then certain public bodies or officials act as if those rules do not exist.
If a person has fulfilled his duty, updated his data, remains registered, has documents, but nevertheless faces a force-based scenario on the street, in public transport, near a shopping centre, a restaurant or a concert venue, a legitimate question arises: why were these rules introduced in the first place?
Law cannot be a one-sided contract in which the citizen must comply with everything, while the State reserves the right to act at its own discretion.
The Problem Is Not Mobilization as Such, but the Way It Is Implemented
The need for mobilization during war does not cancel the need to respect human rights. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. On the contrary, the more difficult the situation is for the State, the more important it becomes to preserve the line between the lawful performance of a State function and arbitrariness.
Ukraine
By Sergey Gromov
15 October 2024
ignored.
by law.
Mobilization is a legal process. It must have procedures, documents, time limits, grounds, powers, responsible officials, the possibility of appeal and institutional control. If the process is reduced to stopping a man, restricting his freedom of movement, taking him to a recruitment centre, quickly completing formal procedures and sending him further, society no longer perceives this as lawful mobilization.
It perceives it as coercion.
Coercion that is not explained by law, not formalized by a proper decision and not accompanied by real safeguards generates fear. Fear generates distrust. Distrust generates resistance. As a result, the State receives the opposite effect: alienation instead of support, internal tension instead of discipline, and a sense of injustice instead of legal order.
An Administrative Target Cannot Stand Above Human Rights
One of the greatest dangers in the mobilization process is that local officials may begin to perceive mobilization indicators as the main purpose of their work. When numbers become more important than legality, the risk of abuse becomes inevitable.
The State may set tasks. The army may need reinforcements. Command structures may demand results. But no administrative indicator can justify the violation of human rights.
An official has no right to think in terms of: “the main thing is to fulfil the target, and legality can be explained later.” In a State governed by law, the logic must be the opposite: legality first, result second. A result obtained unlawfully always undermines the legitimacy of State action.
It is especially dangerous when those responsible for mobilization measures are themselves under pressure. If failure to meet indicators may lead to negative service consequences for them, the temptation arises to act more harshly, more quickly and more formally. But a system that pushes officials toward violating human rights does not become more effective. It becomes more dangerous.
“Busification” as a Symptom of Lost Legal Trust The word “busification” is not a legal term. It does not exist in legislation. But it has become part of public language because people are trying to name a phenomenon they see and fear.
This phenomenon cannot be ignored merely because it has no official definition. In legal terms, it may involve very specific questions: whether an official had the authority to stop a person; whether there were lawful grounds for checking documents; whether there was de facto detention without a decision by an authorized body; whether the person was allowed to contact relatives or a lawyer; whether the medical examination was
conducted properly; whether there was pressure, coercion or restriction of freedom of movement.
Each of these questions matters. Mobilization is not the moment when a person is physically delivered to a certain building. It is a procedure in which the State must prove the legality of each of its steps.
If the State demands that citizens respect the law, the State must be the first to demonstrate respect for the law.
Public Raids and the Signal They Send to Society
Particular concern arises when checks of military registration documents are carried out en masse, simultaneously, in public places, after concerts, in entertainment venues, near shopping centres or in other places where many people gather.
Ukraine
By Sergey Gromov
15 October 2024
ignored.
by law.
It perceives it as coercion.
instead of legal order.
abuse becomes inevitable.
From a formal perspective, the State may explain such actions by the need to check documents and enforce mobilization legislation. But from the perspective of public perception, such actions have a different effect.
They demonstrate not an orderly legal procedure, but force. They create the impression that the citizen is not a participant in a legal relationship with the State, but an object of administrative influence.
This is a dangerous signal.
Public force may produce a short-term result. But it almost always destroys long-term trust. During war, trust between the citizen and the State is no less important than weapons, equipment or mobilization resources.
The Line Between a Lawful Summons and Unlawful Coercion
A lawful summons to a territorial recruitment and social support centre must have a clear form: proper notification, a properly issued summons, a defined time and place of appearance, legal consequences for non- appearance, the possibility to submit documents, confirm the right to deferment, undergo a medical examination and challenge a decision.
Unlawful coercion looks different. It is a situation where a person effectively cannot leave freely, where the grounds for the actions are not explained, where he is deprived of the possibility to contact relatives, where access to a lawyer is ignored, where the medical examination is formal, and where the decision is not made after a real assessment of the circumstances but simply to complete a predetermined scenario.
The line between legality and arbitrariness lies precisely here: does the person remain a subject of law, or is he turned into an object for fulfilling a target?
A Lawyer’s View: The Right to Defence Does Not Disappear During
Mobilization
Every person subject to mobilization measures has the right to legal assistance. He has the right to understand what is happening to him, on what legal grounds he is being summoned, what documents are being prepared, what decision is being made, whether he has the right to deferment, whether the military medical commission was conducted properly, and whether the actions or decisions of officials may be challenged.
The right to a lawyer is not an obstacle to mobilization. It is a safeguard against mistakes, abuses and unlawful decisions.
If a person is indeed subject to mobilization, this must be established lawfully. If a person has the right to deferment, that right must be properly considered. If a person has serious health problems, they cannot be ignored through a formal medical examination. If an official has exceeded his powers, there must be legal consequences.
War does not abolish the legal profession. War does not abolish the courts. War does not abolish the Constitution. War does not abolish human dignity.
Why This Matters for the State
It may be tempting to believe that harsh mobilization methods help the State achieve results faster. But in the long term, unlawful coercion always works against the State.
It demoralizes society. It creates an image of injustice. It undermines trust in the army, even though the army needs respect and support. It casts doubt on the legality of State bodies’ actions. It gives rise to court disputes, complaints, criminal proceedings, international criticism and internal division.
Ukraine
By Sergey Gromov
15 October 2024
ignored.
by law.
It perceives it as coercion.
instead of legal order.
abuse becomes inevitable.
This is a dangerous signal.
Mobilization
decisions.
consequences.
A State defending itself against an external enemy must not create a sense of lawlessness inside the country.
Lawlessness never strengthens defence. It only weakens the social foundation on which that defence depends.
Conclusion
Mobilization during war may be necessary. But necessity does not mean permissiveness. The State has the right to demand that citizens fulfil their duties, but it has no right to abandon its own duties toward the individual.
Lawful mobilization means procedure, documents, respect, control, medical examination, the possibility of defence and the right to appeal. Unlawful mobilization means fear, force, haste, formality and silence.
Ukraine is fighting not only for territory. Ukraine is fighting for the right to remain a State where the individual has dignity and power has limits.
That is why mobilization is not only a military issue. It is a legal issue. It is an issue of trust. It is an issue of what kind of State Ukraine will be after the war.
Ukraine
By Sergey Gromov
15 October 2024
ignored.
by law.
It perceives it as coercion.
instead of legal order.
abuse becomes inevitable.
This is a dangerous signal.
Mobilization
decisions.
consequences.
Conclusion
Ukraine
By Sergey Gromov
15 October 2024
ignored.
by law.
It perceives it as coercion.
instead of legal order.
abuse becomes inevitable.
This is a dangerous signal.
Mobilization
decisions.
consequences.
Conclusion
Ukraine
By Sergey Gromov
15 October 2024
ignored.
by law.
It perceives it as coercion.
instead of legal order.
abuse becomes inevitable.
This is a dangerous signal.
Mobilization
decisions.
consequences.
Conclusion
Ukraine
By Sergey Gromov
15 October 2024
ignored.
by law.
It perceives it as coercion.
instead of legal order.
abuse becomes inevitable.
This is a dangerous signal.
Mobilization
decisions.
consequences.