Three-criterion model for the legitimate restriction of the right to freedom of political expression in armed conflict: international standards and national practice

The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the concept of the three-criterion model of legitimate restriction of human rights, which is based on three interdependent criteria: legality (prescribed by law), the pursuit of a legitimate aim, and the necessity of interference in a democratic society. The study examines the theoretical foundations, legal codification, and practical application of this model in the context of armed conflict, using the right to freedom of political expression as a case example. Emphasis is placed on the special status of the right to freedom of political expression as a subject of enhanced protection under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The author analyzes current challenges in the legal practice of Ukraine, including vague legal terminology, excessive administrative interference, lack of effective judicial oversight, and risks of imbalance between security and freedom. It is concluded that under martial law, it is essential not only to formally apply the provisions of international treaties but also to ensure a genuine mechanism for assessing the proportionality and justification of restrictions. The article proposes specific legal measures to improve the regulatory framework, strengthen judicial review, and ensure transparency in processes related to the restriction of political rights under emergency conditions.