Compulsory Military Registration as a Legal Condition for Ukrainian Citizens Abroad to Obtain a Passport

The response from the State Migration Service of Ukraine (SMSU) establishes a very specific point: under martial law, the issuance of Ukrainian national passports and foreign passports to citizens who are abroad and serviced by consular or overseas divisions is carried out only if those individuals possess valid military registration documents. This is explicitly stated in Part 6 of Article 20 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law,” cited in the SMSU’s letter, and reiterated at the end of the response: passports for male citizens aged 18 to 60 abroad are issued only upon presentation of military registration documents. Importantly, this condition does not apply to passport issuance within Ukraine. Thus, the state has effectively established two separate regimes for access to identity documents: a regular one for citizens inside the country, and a restricted one for citizens outside its borders.

Substantively, this means the following. The applicant had asked on what legal grounds Ukrainian consular and migration authorities require military registration documents when processing passports. The SMSU replied that it acts within its competence, referring to the Law on the Unified Demographic Register, the Cabinet of Ministers’ regulations on passport issuance, and the Law on Martial Law. The SMSU further confirmed that data on conscripts and reservists are transmitted from the Unified State Register of Conscripts, Military Obliged Persons, and Reservists to the Demographic Register. In other words, the agency openly acknowledged the existence of an automated data exchange between civilian and military databases.

Legally, this means several things. First, the state has deliberately linked the realization of a fundamental civil right (the right to obtain a passport and confirm citizenship) with the fulfillment of military duty. Second, this requirement applies only to a specific category — men of conscription age who are abroad and dependent on consular offices — not to all citizens. Third, the state effectively confirms that, for this group, the passport is no longer a personal identification document, but an instrument of military control. In other words, a passport is issued not because a person is a citizen, but because he is registered for military service and considered a mobilizable resource.

In this form, the requirement directly conflicts with international law. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees the right of everyone to leave any country, including their own. Such a right may be restricted only by law, only for specific purposes (national security, public order, public health, or the rights of others), and only when the restriction is necessary and proportionate. Conditioning the right to obtain a passport abroad on military registration meets none of these criteria. It is not proportionate, because it applies to all men aged 18–60 without individualized assessment. It is not necessary, because the state could ensure mobilization control by other means. And it is not established “by law” in the strict sense, because the actual mechanism operates through subordinate acts and administrative instructions rather than a statute.

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights also guarantees the right to freely leave any country. Even under wartime conditions, Ukraine has not received any general authorization from the Council of Europe or the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to impose blanket restrictions on leaving the country based on sex and age through administrative passport rules. Introducing such a restriction via passport issuance, rather than through a direct legal ban, amounts to a concealed restriction of freedom of movement. In effect, instead of openly banning exit, the state deprives the person of the document necessary to leave.

The SMSU’s letter also affects the right to nationality and to personal documentation. Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality. In modern international law, refusal to issue a passport or creating discriminatory conditions for obtaining one is considered a form of de facto deprivation of nationality or an act leading to de facto statelessness. The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and UNHCR guidance emphasize that states may not condition the issuance or renewal of documents confirming citizenship upon unrelated obligations — especially military ones. That is precisely what Ukraine has done here.

The discriminatory character of this measure is also clear. The restriction applies only to men of conscription age who are abroad. Women, minors, and men over 60 are exempt. This is not legitimate differentiation but discrimination on the basis of sex and age, contrary to Article 26 of the ICCPR and Article 14 of the European Convention. The state has not demonstrated that this specific group poses such an exceptional risk to national security as to justify passport denial.

The measure also violates the right to legal recognition. Article 16 of the ICCPR and Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirm that everyone has the right to recognition as a person before the law everywhere. Without a passport or valid ID, a citizen abroad cannot sign contracts, register residence, maintain legal status, access healthcare, or document family relations. In effect, by enforcing this rule, the state deprives its own citizens of legal existence abroad — a form of administrative exile.

Another issue is the unlawful exchange of personal data. The SMSU explicitly acknowledges that information on conscripts and reservists is exchanged electronically between the Unified Demographic Register and the Unified Military Register. This means sensitive personal data are processed and transmitted automatically without explicit consent. Under European legal standards, such practices constitute interference with private life and must be governed by a specific law, subject to judicial oversight, or limited to a formally declared state of emergency with international notification. None of these safeguards are in place. This violates Article 8 of the European Convention and Article 17 of the ICCPR.

Moreover, Ukraine has effectively introduced extraterritorial military coercion. A citizen living abroad and not making use of Ukrainian territory or public services is still compelled to fulfill military registration obligations — otherwise, he is denied identity documents. This exceeds normal jurisdiction and breaches the principle of proportionality: the right to identity and citizenship is conditioned not on residence or taxes, but on military compliance. This can be classified as forced militarization through administrative procedures.

From the constitutional perspective, this situation is equally problematic. Article 25 of the Constitution of Ukraine explicitly provides that a citizen of Ukraine cannot be deprived of citizenship or the right to change it. Refusing to issue a passport abroad is, in essence, a denial of citizenship confirmation. Article 33 guarantees freedom of movement and the right to freely leave Ukraine, and such restrictions can be imposed only by law. Yet here, the state enforces the restriction through a combination of martial law provisions, Cabinet of Ministers decrees, and administrative regulations — an unlawful hierarchy where basic rights are curtailed by secondary legislation.

More broadly, this practice violates Ukraine’s obligations under the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement, under which Ukraine committed to aligning its personal data, documentation, and anti-discrimination frameworks with EU standards. In the EU legal system, conditioning passport issuance for men abroad on military registration would be deemed a violation of freedom of movement and discrimination based on sex.

Another consequence is that Ukrainian men abroad who cannot obtain or renew passports due to this requirement fall into migratory vulnerability. They cannot legalize their status, extend residence permits, or apply for asylum, since their Ukrainian identity documents expire. This contravenes the 1951 Refugee Convention and UNHCR policy, which forbid states of origin from creating conditions that render their citizens documentless and unprotected abroad. Ukraine’s measure does exactly that.

Therefore, the SMSU letter can and should be used by Ukrainians and their legal representatives as an official confirmation that passport denials or delays are not technical, but stem from deliberate state policy linking civil rights to military obligations. It serves as crucial evidence in asylum claims, appeals against residence permit denials, explanations of non-return to Ukraine, and in proving risk of persecution on the grounds of sex and age.

In international law, this measure constitutes a pattern of systemic violations: restriction of access to identity documents, restriction of the right to leave, discrimination, breach of data protection, undermining legal certainty, and extraterritorial military coercion. It is not an administrative irregularity but part of a structural mechanism where the state ties citizenship itself to conscription readiness. This amounts to coercive enlistment of the civilian population and misuse of administrative law for military purposes.

A comprehensive list of international and constitutional norms violated by the requirement to provide military registration documents as a condition for obtaining a passport

 1.   Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

• Article 6 — Right to recognition as a person before the law.

Refusal or delay in issuing a passport deprives a person of legal personality in the international sphere. Without valid documents, a citizen abroad cannot engage in legal relations, register a place of residence, or access state protection, effectively suspending recognition of their personhood as a subject of law.

• Article 12 — Right to privacy and family life.

Automatic exchange of personal data between military and civilian registries without the individual’s consent constitutes interference with private life and misuse of confidential information, contrary to this article.

• Article 13(2) — Right to leave any country, including one’s own.

Linking this right to the obligation of military registration transforms it from a universal right into a privilege dependent on the fulfillment of military duties, violating the principle of its indivisibility and inalienability.

• Article 15 — Right to nationality and prohibition of arbitrary deprivation thereof.

Since passport issuance is made conditional on military obligations, the state effectively introduces a form of deprivation of nationality when a person loses the ability to confirm or exercise it.

 2.   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

• Article 12(1–2) — Freedom of movement and the right to leave any country.

Administrative dependence of the right to obtain a passport on military registration is an indirect but practically complete restriction of the right to leave. Such limitation is neither necessary nor proportionate and is based on sex and age rather than national security objectives.

• Article 16 — Right to recognition as a person before the law.

Without a valid identity document, a citizen cannot participate in legal transactions abroad. Refusal to issue a passport deprives them of de facto legal capacity and the ability to act within the legal field.

• Article 17 — Right to privacy.

Automatic transfer of data from the demographic register to the military one without informed consent or judicial oversight constitutes unlawful interference with private life.

• Article 26 — Equality before the law and prohibition of discrimination.

The requirement applies exclusively to men aged 18–60, constituting clear discrimination based on sex and age. As no similar requirements are imposed on women and minors, the principle of equal protection is violated.

 3.   European Convention on Human Rights (1950)

• Article 8 — Right to respect for private and family life.

Forced transfer of personal and biometric data between military and civilian structures without the person’s consent constitutes a violation of informational privacy.

• Article 14 — Prohibition of discrimination.

The measure targets a specific group — men of conscription age — and excludes all others. Such differential treatment based on sex and age lacks objective justification and is discriminatory.

• Protocol No. 4, Article 2 — Right to leave any country, including one’s own.

Refusal to issue a passport effectively prevents citizens from leaving Ukraine, turning it into an administrative ban. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly recognized refusal to issue a passport as a restriction on freedom of movement.

 4.   Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961)

• Articles 1 and 7 — Prohibition on rendering persons stateless through administrative acts.

Refusal to issue or renew a passport, especially abroad, effectively renders citizens stateless, as they cannot prove nationality or obtain consular protection. Such administrative inaction is expressly prohibited by the Convention.

 5.   Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951)

• Article 28 — Obligation of the state to issue valid identity or travel documents and not to create conditions for their loss.

Ukraine, as the country of origin, is obliged not to create situations in which its citizens abroad lose valid documents and remain without protection. Linking passport renewal to military registration creates exactly such a situation.

 6.   Council of Europe Convention No. 222 on the Avoidance of Statelessness in Relation to State Succession (2006)

• Article 4 — Obligation of states to prevent statelessness resulting from administrative acts.

Refusal to issue passports to citizens abroad for bureaucratic reasons constitutes an administrative act leading to functional statelessness, contrary to this provision.

 7.   ILO Convention No. 111 on Discrimination (1958)

• Article 1 — Prohibits any distinctions, exclusions, or preferences based on race, sex, religion, political opinion, national origin, or social status.

The principle of non-discrimination in international law extends to equal access to documentation. The requirement of military registration only for men of a certain age violates this fundamental principle of equality.

 8.   European Social Charter (Revised, 1996)

• Article E — Non-discrimination in the enjoyment of rights guaranteed by the Charter.

Equal enjoyment of civil rights, including the right to legal status and administrative recognition, cannot depend on sex or age.

• Article 18 — The right to engage in gainful employment in other countries.

Persons deprived of passports lose the opportunity to work legally abroad, violating their right to work and freedom of movement.

 9.   Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000)

• Articles 20–21 — Equality before the law and prohibition of discrimination.

This requirement contradicts EU standards by introducing administrative inequality based on sex and age.

• Article 45 — Freedom of movement and residence.

Linking the issuance of travel documents to military registration violates the fundamental principle of freedom of movement enshrined in EU law.

 10.   OSCE Copenhagen Document (1990)

• Paragraphs 23.1–23.2 — Equal protection of human rights without distinction as to sex, race, or other status.

Participating States, including Ukraine, undertook to guarantee men and women equal access to documents and freedom of movement. Passport restrictions imposed on men violate this commitment.

 11.   UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 27 (1999) to Article 12 of the ICCPR

• Paragraphs 2, 11, and 14 — Prohibit any indirect or administrative obstacles to the exercise of the right to leave a country.

The Committee explicitly states that a state may not restrict the right to leave by refusing to issue or renew passports for administrative or coercive reasons, including military ones.

 12.   EU–Ukraine Association Agreement (2014)

• Section III, Chapter 19 — Obligation of Ukraine to ensure the protection of personal data.

Automatic transfer of citizens’ data between military and civilian databases violates EU standards on data protection and purpose limitation.

• Chapter 23 — Obligation to observe principles of non-discrimination and equal access to administrative services.

The requirement of additional documents only from a specific demographic group (men abroad) violates the principle of equal access to public services.

 13.   Constitution of Ukraine (1996)

• Article 25 — A citizen of Ukraine cannot be deprived of citizenship or the right to change it.

Dependence of passport issuance or renewal on military registration effectively deprives a person of the ability to exercise citizenship. A citizen without a valid passport is de facto deprived of citizenship, despite its formal preservation.

• Article 33 — Right to freedom of movement and to leave the country.

Refusal to issue a passport to those not registered for military service constitutes an indirect travel ban. Such administrative barriers are unconstitutional because they transform a universal right into a privilege.

• Article 64 — Fundamental rights may be restricted only by law and only during martial law within the limits of necessity.

Restrictions on passport issuance are not provided by law and are implemented through governmental decrees, exceeding permissible limits and failing the criteria of necessity and proportionality.

• Article 65 — Defense of the Homeland as a constitutional duty.

This article presupposes the existence of the “Homeland” and the “People of Ukraine” as a single constitutional subject. However, since Ukrainian legislation no longer recognizes ethnic Ukrainians as a people, and national minorities possess only cultural but not political subjectivity, the duty of defense ceases to be service to one’s own sovereign. Under such conditions, mobilization becomes forced service to a foreign authority, contradicting the constitutional understanding of national defense.

 14.   Compulsion to Serve a Foreign Sovereign — International Legal Consequences

In international law, military service implies loyalty to a state expressing the will of its own people. When the titular nation — ethnic Ukrainians — is excluded from legal recognition as a people, its members lose the legal bond with the sovereign in whose name hostilities are conducted. Under such conditions, their mobilization ceases to be an act of national defense and becomes a form of coercion to serve a foreign sovereign.

Such coercion simultaneously bears the features of mercenarism, as individuals are forced to participate in armed conflict on behalf of an authority to which they owe no allegiance and which does not represent their people. In doing so, the state violates fundamental norms of international humanitarian law enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute, and international human rights covenants.

• Article 47 of Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions (1949) — Defines and prohibits mercenarism, including participation in armed conflict on behalf of a party with which the person has no political affiliation. The forced involvement of ethnic Ukrainians in hostilities under an authority that does not legally represent their sovereignty fits the definition of mercenarism.

• Article 8(2)(b)(xxvi) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) — Classifies as a war crime the coercion of citizens of a hostile or foreign power to take part in hostilities against their own people or in the interests of another state. By excluding ethnic Ukrainians from the category of “people,” Ukraine has effectively created conditions for forced mercenarism within its own legal system.

• Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) — Guarantees the right to life and prohibits arbitrary deprivation thereof. Forced mobilization of persons deprived of collective subjectivity makes them victims of coerced participation in war, which is legally equivalent to arbitrary deprivation of life.

• Article 4(2) of the same Covenant — Lists rights that cannot be restricted even during states of emergency or war, including the prohibition of forced labor. Administrative coercion into military service in the absence of political representation violates this provision and constitutes a form of forced labor.

• Article 1(1) of the ICCPR and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — Affirm the right of all peoples to self-determination. Coercing ethnic Ukrainians, unrecognized as a people, to serve under an authority that does not represent them violates this right and constitutes an act of suppression of a people, prohibited as a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens).

• Article 75(2)(e) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions — Explicitly prohibits compelling individuals to serve in the armed forces of a party to the conflict with which they do not identify. Exclusion of ethnic Ukrainians from recognition as a people renders any forced enlistment of them unlawful under this provision.

• Article 1 of the Slavery Convention (1926) and Article 8 of the ICCPR — Prohibit forced or compulsory labor. When military registration becomes a condition for obtaining a passport or confirming citizenship, it creates a system of administrative slavery, where individuals are used as mobilization resources, stripped of legal autonomy.

Thus, by excluding the titular nation from the category of “people,” Ukraine has effectively transformed the military service of ethnic Ukrainians into forced mercenarism under the control of a foreign sovereign. This constitutes a grave violation of international law, qualifies as a crime against humanity, and undermines the very foundation of popular sovereignty enshrined in the UN Charter and international human rights covenants.

Summary:

This legal construct transforms the constitutional duty to defend the Homeland into a form of forced service to a foreign sovereign, since the population subject to mobilization — ethnic Ukrainians — is no longer recognized as part of the people of Ukraine and has lost the legal status of a collective subject on whose behalf the state exercises power and expresses sovereignty.

By excluding the titular nation from the legal definition of “the people,” Ukraine has deprived it of the status of a source of sovereignty and political representation, as a result of which the performance of military duty has lost the character of service to one’s own people and has acquired the nature of coercion to serve a state that, in legal terms, neither expresses their will nor represents them as a people.

Such a construct creates a system of legal subordination and functional enslavement in which citizens are treated not as bearers of sovereignty but as a mobilization resource. It simultaneously constitutes a form of internal colonization and an instrument of forced assimilation through administrative subordination to a foreign sovereign.

Mandatory military registration as a precondition for obtaining a passport violates a broad range of international and constitutional rights and falls under the characteristics of forced conscription, mercenarism, and violent militarization of the population without political representation.

Such regulation constitutes a systemic violation not only of human rights but also of the rights of peoples, as it blocks the realization of the peremptory norm of international law — the right of peoples to self-determination — enshrined in Article 1 of both 1966 Covenants and Article 1(2) of the UN Charter.

By compelling individuals belonging to an unrecognized community — ethnic Ukrainians — to serve a state that does not express their will and does not represent them as a people, Ukraine restores a system in which the individual loses not only individual but also collective rights inherent to the status of a member of a people.

Such a system destroys the fundamental distinction between citizen and subject, replacing the republican principle of popular sovereignty with administrative subordination to a state apparatus acting under the control of a foreign sovereign.

Thus, this legal model effectively establishes a colonial dependency and a condition of enslavement in which the population of Ukraine loses its sovereign right to self-determination and is compelled to serve an authority acting in the interests of a foreign sovereign. This constitutes a direct violation of the principles of sovereignty, equality, and human dignity upon which modern international law is founded.

From the standpoint of international humanitarian law and Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, such actions constitute crimes against humanity, as they are carried out within a framework of systematic state policy directed against the civilian population, deprived of political subjectivity and coerced into participation in armed conflict.

Conclusion: the establishment of a dependency between the issuance of passports and the presence of military registration documents contradicts both international and national law. It imposes direct restrictions on human rights, discriminates on the basis of sex and age, deprives citizens of the ability to confirm their nationality, and turns an administrative procedure into an instrument of military coercion. This practice constitutes a crime against humanity, as well as an act of internal colonization and enslavement of a people deprived of political recognition and collective subjectivity.