Conscientious objection in war-torn Ukraine

The question is now before the Ukrainian Constitutional Court. Just Security has this analysis by Andrii Nekoliak. Excerpt:

On such a sensitive matter, the Court is likely to strategically calculate the risks of the fallout of a decision in favor of the complainant. Constitutional Court justices might be concerned that such a decision could inadvertently encourage a legal form of draft-dodging. Thus, the Court is likely to take a restrictive, conservative approach to the understanding of military duty in wartime. It may say that proper recruitment of the armed forces necessitates a limit on the application of the conscientious objection guarantee. It could further substantiate that the term “military duty” in the Constitution envisions only regular draft in peacetime and that, when there is a war, the alternative forms of executing this duty do not apply.

The Court could further ask Parliament to tailor the term “military duty” accordingly in ordinary legislation (e.g. the Alternative Service Act or the 1992 Act on General Military Duty and Military Service). This would, at least, lessen the tension between Article 35 of the Constitution and this legislation. This restrictive approach also is the most practically convenient in times when Ukraine faces a severe shortage of troops.