THE LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE RESTRICTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS FOR THE SAKE OF REALIZING THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE IN TIMES OF WAR

Abstract

The article examines the issue of permissible limitations on human rights during armed conflict, which represents one of the most intricate challenges in contemporary legal scholarship, encompassing both legal and philosophical-ethical dimensions of state functioning. The central focus lies in defining the scope of state intervention in individual rights under martial law, while simultaneously ensuring a balance between collective security and personal liberty. The principles of necessity and proportionality play a critical role in this context, serving as universal benchmarks for evaluating any restrictions on rights and freedoms. The principle of necessity stipulates that restrictions may only be imposed in the presence of a real and imminent threat that cannot be averted by less restrictive means. In turn, the principle of proportionality requires that the nature and extent of such restrictions be commensurate with the legitimateaim of protecting state interests. The Constitution of Ukraine and specialized legal acts, particularly the Law “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law,” establish clear boundaries for potential restrictions, including a set of inalienable rights that must remain protected even under emergency conditions. An analysis of Ukrainian legal practice in recent years—especially following the full-scale Russian invasion on February 24, 2022—reveals that the government has implemented a broad spectrum of restrictive measures in areas such as labor relations, mobilization, and freedom of movement. These measures underscore the necessity for robust oversight mechanisms and institutional transparency to prevent abuses and the prolongation of restrictions beyond the legally justified timeframe. Comparative international experience and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights confirm that temporary limitations on human rights are permissible in situations of extreme danger, but must not nullify the essence of fundamental freedoms. As a signatory to international treaties, Ukraine is obligated to maintain transparency and cooperate with international monitoring bodies. Historical precedent demonstrates that wartime restrictions often persist beyond the end of conflict, making the timely restoration of rights and freedoms a critical component of democratic governance. The article concludes that the boundaries of permissible restrictions during wartime are determined by a multi-tiered system of safeguards, and that the effective coordination of legislative, judicial, and international oversight mechanisms is essential to simultaneously ensure national security and uphold the dignity and rights of every citizen.