THE RIGHT TO DEROGATE FROM HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS DURING WAR

Abstract

The article examines the right of a state to derogate from its human rights obligations during war as an
exceptional mechanism of international and constitutional law applied in situations of public emergency. It is argued
that derogation does not mean the abolition of human rights or the release of the state from the obligation to act
within the limits of law. Rather, it constitutes a special legal regime of temporary, proportionate, and controlled
restriction of certain guarantees. The study focuses on Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine, and the
Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law”, which together form the normative basis for permissible
derogation in crisis conditions. The article identifies the key criteria for the lawfulness of derogation, including the
existence of war or another public emergency threatening the life of the nation, strict necessity, proportionality,
temporariness, non-discrimination, consistency with other international obligations, and proper international
notification. The article distinguishes derogation from ordinary restrictions on human rights and from constitutional
limitations introduced under martial law. Particular attention is paid to the case law of the European Court of
Human Rights, especially Lawless v. Ireland, Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom, Aksoy v. Turkey, A.
and Others v. the United Kingdom, Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, and Şahin Alpay v. Turkey, as these judgments
shaped the standards for assessing emergency measures. The article emphasizes that even in wartime the state does
not enjoy unlimited discretion, since derogation remains subject to both international and domestic legal control.
Special attention is also given to the non-derogable core of human rights, which cannot be restricted under any
circumstances, and to the interaction between international human rights law and international humanitarian law.
It is demonstrated that the issue of derogation is especially relevant for Ukraine in the context of the full-scale war,
martial law, and the need for continuous reassessment of the scope of restrictions in accordance with the actual
security situation. The article concludes that lawful derogation is possible only if the rule of law, effective judicial
protection, parliamentary and international control, and compliance with international humanitarian law are
preserved.

References

1. Baadzhy, N. A. (2023). Do pytannia zakonnosti derogatsii prav liudyny: Umovy pravomirnosti

zghidno praktytsi YeSPL [On the legality of derogation from human rights: Conditions of lawfulness according

to ECtHR case law]. Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal, (10), 593–596. DOI

https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2023-10/143 [in Ukrainian].

2. Bochkovoi, V. O. (2025). Poniattia derogatsii ta yii mistse v systemi obmezhen prav liudyny [The

concept of derogation and its place in the system of human rights restrictions]. Naukovyi visnyk

Uzhhorodskoho Natsionalnoho Universytetu. Seriia Pravo, 89(4), 82–86. URL:

https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2025.89.4.12 [in Ukrainian].

3. Marushchak, A. V. (2022). Pravova osnova derogatsii yak pravomirnoho obmezhennia prav liudyny

[The legal basis of derogation as a lawful restriction of human rights]. In S. V. Kivalov (Ed.), Yevropeiskyi

vybir Ukrainy, rozvytok nauky ta natsionalna bezpeka v realiiakh masshtabnoi viiskovoi ahresii ta hlobalnykh

vyklykiv XXI stolittia (Vol. 1, PP. 449–452). Vydavnychyi dim “Helvetyka”. URL:

https://dspace.onua.edu.ua/server/api/core/bitstreams/d21a7159-0e7d-4e47-b1ce-448b2dbcdad3/content

[in Ukrainian].

4. European Court of Human Rights. (2025). Guide on Article 15 of the European Convention on Human

Rights: Derogation in time of emergency. Updated August 31, 2025. URL:

https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_15_ukr [in Ukrainian].

5. European Court of Human Rights. (1996). Aksoy v. Turkey, Application no. 21987/93, Judgment of

18 December 1996. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58003 [in English].

6. European Court of Human Rights. (1993). Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom,

Applications nos. 14553/89 and 14554/89, Judgment of 25 May 1993. URL:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57819 [in English].

7. European Court of Human Rights. (1961). Lawless v. Ireland (No. 3), Application no. 332/57,

Judgment of 1 July 1961. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57518 [in English].

8. European Court of Human Rights. (2018). Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, Application no. 13237/17,

Judgment of 20 March 2018. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-181862 [in English].

9. European Court of Human Rights. (2018). Şahin Alpay v. Turkey, Application no. 16538/17,

Judgment of 20 March 2018. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-181864 [in English].