The right to freedom of expression of political opinions in the conditions of modern armed aggressions: problem aspects in the context of human rights restrictions and the practice of the ECHR

It is pointed out that the right to freedom of political expression is a fundamental guarantee of a democratic society, but its implementation faces numerous challenges during armed conflicts. In modern conditions of aggression, such as the war in Ukraine, this right is often restricted in order to ensure national security, protect public order, or prevent hostile propaganda. The article investigates the problematic aspects of the implementation of the right to freedom of expression of political views in the context of modern armed aggressions in the context of restrictions on human rights and the practice of the ECHR. The freedom of expression of political views is a constitutional fundamental right, which justifiably belongs to basic human rights, since it is closely related to its identity and political worldview. Such freedom is of great importance for the proper functioning of the entire society, maintaining public dialogue in the political sphere and democracy. Accordingly, without establishing proper guarantees for the existence of this right, the normal functioning of most democratic instruments, such as free elections or referendums, becomes virtually impossible. The practice of ECHR proves that restrictions on freedom of expression during armed aggressions can be justified only if the principles of legality, proportionality and legitimacy of the goal are observed. It is substantiated that the issue of ensuring the right to freedom of political expression in conditions of armed aggression requires the development of new approaches to legal regulation, harmonization of international standards and the introduction of mechanisms for monitoring compliance with human rights. It is concluded that ensuring the right to freedom of political expression in modern conditions, when individual actors in international relations, disregarding the basic principles of international law, commit armed aggression, is a difficult but critically important task. The practice of the ECHR demonstrates that such restrictions can be permissible only under conditions of compliance with clearly defined criteria. New challenges require a review of existing approaches.