Ukrainian men who I have communicated with on Twitter have expressed similar views.

Pia Storf, a doctoral candidate in public law and international security, makes a similar case, arguing that Ukraine did not meet the bar for a derogation from the 'right to leave one's country' rule, having not demonstrated such a policy was 'strictly necessary.'Īnother suggested other ways for them to contribute: 'Of those men who are staunch pacifists, there will be no use in war - let them go abroad, work and send money to Ukraine, to their relatives and pay taxes to the State.' A third wrote, 'A person forcibly taken into the army will not be useful, but can bring problems to others.' Others have made similar arguments.Īmy Maguire, a professor of law, has written that the law likely violates the non-derogable right to freedom of conscience by failing to carve out an exception for conscientious objection. In a recent article for Foreign Policy, I wrote about the human rights and humanitarian aspects of this policy, which contradicts treaties guaranteeing gender equality and the freedom of movement for all civilians.

Soon after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Kyiv filed a notice with the United Nations secretary-general that it would be establishing martial law and derogating from its obligations under a number of human rights treaties due to national emergency.Īmong these derogations was the right to freedom of movement for adult men aged 18 to 60, who have since then been barred from leaving the country and denied the ability to flee the war with their families, regardless of their training or fitness for military service.

Rules of survival twitter