Legal Liability of Military Personnel in Ukraine: Why the Current System Needs to Be Reformed
- Chernenko Vladislav Vasilyevich
- Apr 12
- 3 min read
Lawyer and researcher Vladislav Chernenko discusses why the current disciplinary system in the Armed Forces of Ukraine punishes rather than protects, and what model could change that.
Why I undertook this study
I work as a lawyer representing military personnel. Every day, I see how people who defend the country are confronted by a system that fails to defend them in return.
Disciplinary proceedings that ignore the psychological state following combat. Criminal prosecutions that lack an understanding of the actual context of military service. No rehabilitation after a violation—only punishment, period.
This is precisely what prompted me to conduct the research that was recently published in the professional journal “Law and Society” (No. 4/2025). I want to share the main findings—without academic jargon, in simple terms.
The Problem: The System Reacts, but Does Not Prevent
The current system of legal accountability for military personnel is based on a single principle: violate the rules, face punishment. The Armed Forces of Ukraine’s Disciplinary Code sets out a list of penalties, while the Criminal Code lists offenses. Everything is clear and straightforward.
But there is one fundamental problem: this system is fragmented. It does not prevent violations. It does not take context into account—the combat situation, a person’s psychological state, or the level of threat. It does not rehabilitate those who have violated the rules and wish to return to normal service.
In peacetime, this somehow works. In the context of full-scale war—it does not.
What I propose: four levels instead of one
In my research, I developed a model of a multi-level integrated system of legal accountability. It consists of four levels that work together—rather than each operating in isolation.
The preventive level involves systematic legal education, regular testing, and individualized work with at-risk groups. The best violation is the one that never happened.
Corrective level—psychological monitoring and mentoring. If a person is on the brink, we need to recognize this before they cross that line, not after.
Sanction level—differentiated measures. The same disciplinary violation in the barracks and in a trench under fire is not the same thing. The sanction must take this into account.
Rehabilitation level — a recovery and reintegration program. This is completely absent from Ukrainian legislation. In my view, this is one of the most serious gaps.
What This Means for Actual Service Members
Simply put, this model changes the logic of the system. Instead of “punish and forget,” it focuses on “prevent, respond, punish appropriately, and help with rehabilitation.”
A comparative analysis has shown that such a system increases the effectiveness of law enforcement by 20–25% and meets NATO standards regarding the rule of law and the protection of human rights.
For a commander, this is a clear legal framework. For a service member, it is a system that not only demands but also protects.
On Criminal Liability Under Martial Law
I have specifically examined the category of “war crimes during a state of emergency”—desertion, unauthorized absence from one’s unit, and failure to obey orders in combat. This is the most sensitive issue.
My position: the severity of sanctions and their appropriateness are not the same thing. The law must be strict but fair. A person who has broken down psychologically after months on the front lines and a person who deliberately shirks their duty are different situations. The system must distinguish between them.
Where to read the full study
The article was published in the academic journal Law and Society.
If you have any questions regarding the protection of military personnel’s rights, please contact us. The first consultation is free.
