European Presidents Conference 2025: Challenges to the Rule of Law by Lidiya Izovitova

Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and the discussion of guarantees of its security, there is a growing militarization of political discourse not only in Ukraine but also in European countries. In the context of martial law, the issue of reforming the military justice system, including the possibility of creating an institute of military advocacy, has become particularly relevant.

Lidiya Izovitova, the President of the UNBA, BCU, drew attention to this in her speech at the 53rd European Presidents Conference, which took place in Vienna on February 27-March 1.

The Ukrainian delegation at the event was also represented by Valentyn Gvozdiy, the Vice President of the UNBA, BCU, Ihor Kolesnikov, Secretary of the BCU, and Hanna Lazarchuk, the UNBA member from Rivne region.

The President of the UNBA, BCU reminded the conference participants that today in Ukraine, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court emphasizes the need to amend the Constitution to establish military justice, including military courts, military public prosecution and the institute of military lawyers. This, in his opinion, will ensure an appropriate level of professionalism in the implementation of legal protection of military personnel.

The President of the UNBA, BCU also said that one of the territorial recruitment centers accused 36 Ukrainian lawyers of unlawful actions to disrupt the mobilization process and create conditions for evading the draft. In response, the Bar Council of Ukraine issued a statement that such actions were in fact the exercise of their legal authority to provide professional legal assistance to clients who are Ukrainian citizens subject to military service. And such pressure on lawyers by the military authorities (even without the creation of a military bar) is a telling example of potential threats in the future.

So the question arises: will the military bar be able to protect the interests of military personnel and military lawyers themselves? The answer is definitely no.

Moreover, the consequence will be a weakening of the guarantees of the practice of law and the independence of the bar through the introduction of the principles of military service. This is because subordination to the military command makes it impossible for an advocate to perform his or her professional duties independently. Moreover, this directly contradicts international standards of legal independence, in particular the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and international standards of justice.

The UNBA believes that an alternative solution should be to strengthen legal guarantees for lawyers who defend military personnel without creating a separate military institute of the Bar.

Taking this opportunity, L. Izovitova also addressed the presidents of the European bar associations present in the conference hall and expressed her deep gratitude for the broad support and invaluable assistance provided in difficult times for Ukraine.

However, the initiative to create a military bar as a separate institution is worrisome, as it could lead to the abolition of established professional standards and pose a threat to the independence of human rights activities and the effective enforcement of the rights of servicemen.

L. Izovitova explained that the key threat is the risk of losing the independence of lawyers who will work in this structure. After all, military service is based on principles (centralization, subordination and unquestioning execution of orders) that contradict the fundamental principles of the independence of the bar and the rule of law (independence, professional autonomy and the priority of human rights).

And the principle of unity of command enshrines the decision-making powers of commanders, which creates a risk of influence on lawyers who may be subjected to administrative or disciplinary pressure. Therefore, the introduction of military governance standards in the field of advocacy will inevitably affect its independence. This may not only undermine the foundations of the legal profession, but also create risks of violating the rights of military personnel whom the lawyer is supposed to protect.