Who are conscientious objectors?
Conscientious objectors are people who believe they cannot take part in military service because of their moral, philosophical, religious, or other deeply held beliefs. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights defines conscientious objection to military service as the legitimate exercise of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
Historically, objections to military service appear in various forms across centuries, but their numbers rose sharply with the rise of universal conscription and large standing armies. In 1995, the United Nations urged member states to enact laws that allow exemption from military service for those with sincere convictions. Yet many societies have punished conscientious objectors, sometimes severely, through imprisonment or worse penalties in some eras.
During World War II, tens of thousands of conscientious objectors were executed in Nazi Germany. In 1997, Germany’s parliament issued a resolution recognizing those persecuted for conscientious objection and desertion, a landmark moment commemorated internationally as the International Day of Conscientious Objectors to Military Service.
Is a conscious refusal possible in Russia?
In the Russian Federation, individuals whose beliefs oppose military service may opt for alternative civilian service ACS. This right is enshrined in the Constitution and elaborated in a 2002 federal law. ACS involves a longer term than traditional military service, 21 months instead of 12, and is governed by labor law, including an eight-hour workday and two days off weekly. Typically, ACS participants reside at home, but if a soldier is reassigned to another region, a hostel is provided.
By 2022, ACS could extend to more than a thousand occupations through a Ministry of Labor initiative. The draft order outlined 127 professions, ranging from window cleaning and courier work to performing arts, dentistry, and microbiology. In discussions with advocacy groups, experts emphasized that many reasons may justify replacing military service with civilian service, including religious, pacifist, anti-war, or political beliefs.
Those aiming to pass ACS must submit an application to the military enlistment office roughly six months before the call to service. It is possible to request reinstatement after missing this window for valid reasons, and decisions to grant ACS are made by the draft commission. Critics describe the commission as a weak point because its core function is to send people to military service, leading to a significant rate of refusals that can be appealed in court, where most cases end in favorable outcomes for the applicant.
Alternative service – only for conscripts?
Even though ACS regulations primarily address conscription, the Russian Constitution grants every citizen the right to replace military service with civil service. Experts note that antiwar convictions can empower a service member to end a military contract, especially if the individual objects to participating in certain operations. The process remains challenging, but antiwar beliefs can be cited as grounds for leaving military service, even during mobilization, under the condition that the individual maintains a reasonable justification for choosing civilian service over combat duties.
According to advocates, there is no need to prove the existence of beliefs; rather, the application should articulate the reasons for opting for civilian service. The ACS mechanism should not be viewed as a substitute for military training. Declaring a wish not to serve does not prove a belief by itself, but antiwar stances can include statements like pacifism or religious principles that guide the choice to avoid combat.
In practice, reserve members and those under military obligation retain the constitutional right to request civilian service, even in times of mobilization. The process centers on presenting credible reasons for civilian service rather than producing verifiable proof of a belief. The human rights community stresses that ACS should not be misused as a path to evade military requirements but as a legitimate expression of conscience.
When applying, it is essential to state clearly the reasons for preferring civilian service. This stance is especially important for those who identify as pacifists or who advocate nonviolence on moral, religious, or political grounds. Advocates remind applicants that beliefs cannot be brought to a court as tangible proof, and the focus should be on the choice itself and its alignment with personal conscience.
What about in other countries?
Russia’s approach to alternative civilian service has often been cited as among the more permissive in the post-Soviet region. In neighbouring Ukraine, ACS has been available since 1991 but is restricted to individuals motivated by religious grounds under Ukrainian law. In Belarus, ACS is also available for religious reasons. In both countries, the option remains limited and not broadly accessible to all conscientious objectors.
Some states in the region have eliminated compulsory service altogether, which has reduced the role of ACS in public policy. In parts of Europe, the variety of legal arrangements reflects different national histories with conscription, including cases where civilian service evolved into a broader social service system or was gradually phased out as mandatory service ended.
In Spain and France, the popularity of civilian service once created staffing needs for social programs, though reforms later altered or reduced the scope of ACS. Germany maintained a long tradition of civilian service alongside conscription, helping to sustain social and public-interest institutions. Italy, after ending conscription, established a national civil service framework to engage young people in community work and to address workforce shortages in the social sector.
Further reading and context on conscientious objection international practices illustrate how governments balance individual conscience with national obligations. This broader landscape demonstrates how different legal frameworks recognize or limit the right to replace military service with civilian alternatives, reflecting diverse cultural and political priorities across regions.
Kyiv and regional developments, EU alignments, and ongoing debates about neutrality, peace, and security continue to shape policies on conscientious objection and civil service around the world.