Absence of Legal Status for “Recruits” under Geneva Conventions and NATO Standards

The request was submitted in order to obtain legal clarification on the term “recruit” in the context of Ukrainian legislation, international humanitarian law, and the current practice of the armed forces.

The questions concerned both the internal status of this term (its usage in Ukrainian legal acts and Armed Forces statutes) and its correlation with international standards (UN documents, the Geneva Conventions, NATO practices).

Specific issues included the duration of service, correspondence with military ranks and positions, and the legal distinction between a “recruit” and a full-fledged servicemember.

The analysis of the response provided allows for the following conclusions:

1. The term “recruit” does indeed appear in Ukrainian normative documents, particularly in the Regulation on the Military Service of Citizens of Ukraine in the Armed Forces, as well as in the List of Staff Positions approved by Ministry of Defense Order No. 317 of 07.09.2020. However, its legal status remains undefined, as:

   • the military rank “recruit” is formally mentioned only as a temporary status before taking the military oath;

   • the documents do not contain an exhaustive legal definition of the term “recruit” as a legal subject or status with clear rights and obligations.

2. The Ministry of Defense explicitly acknowledges that in international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and NATO member state practices, the term “recruit” has no defined status. This means that Ukraine is using a term that does not correspond with international legal standards and is therefore introducing a legal category not protected under international law.

3. The question regarding the duration of service for recruits and their status as servicemembers remained partially unanswered. It was only stated that a “recruit” is a person enrolled in service prior to signing a contract or completing basic training. At the same time, it was not established at what point the person acquires the status of a servicemember with full rights and obligations. As a result, legal uncertainty persists: does such a “recruit” fall under the scope of constitutional provisions, laws on servicemember rights, international conventions, or criminal legislation on war crimes?

4. The Ministry’s refusal to provide a definition of the term “recruit” as public information, and its classification of the response as a “legal consultation,” confirms that the term is not enshrined as part of the public legal framework. This means that citizens at the recruitment stage cannot obtain official legal protection or clarification of their legal status.

5. Thus, within Ukraine’s legal and administrative system, a borderline legal category has emerged in which individuals are already mobilized, undergoing training, and under military control, but are not recognized as servicemembers with the full scope of legal status, nor are they covered by international guarantees under the status of combatants or non-combatants.

This approach creates the risk of a legal vacuum: the use of the term “recruit” can serve as a means of bypassing the state’s obligations towards servicemembers, including rights, payments, protection, compensation, and international safeguards. Moreover, it violates the principle of legal certainty, which is recognized in both national and international law.

Therefore, the responses provided officially confirm that in Ukraine’s defense system, the term “recruit” is used without legal clarity, is not recognized under international law, and may be applied to circumvent legal regulation of servicemember status.

This should be the subject of legal criticism and referral to international bodies in order to bring Ukraine’s practice into compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law.