A House Divided: Critical Remarks on the Loyalty Requirement for Eligibility

The article critically examines the characterization of the restriction established by Article 97 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation as a “civic allegiance” requirement. Without disputing this express constitutional restriction, the author questions whether a specific status rule may be transformed into a general category capable of justifying other restrictions on rights. Loyalty, allegiance, and solidarity are shown to provide no verifiable legal criterion and to create a risk of presumed untrustworthiness. It is argued that introducing such categories into the conceptual framework of constitutional law creates the risk of arbitrary restriction of rights and the substitution of legal analysis with an assessment of a citizen’s internal commitment to the state. The author further addresses the issue from the perspective of the principles of legitimate aim in the restriction of rights, constitutional equality, and the systematic interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Constitutional and municipal law
Published
2026-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-3767-2026-10-45-54
Primary Topic
Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A House Divided: Critical Remarks on the Loyalty Requirement for Eligibility

Ivan A. Brikulsky
Constitutional and municipal law
Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
article

A House Divided: Critical Remarks on the Loyalty Requirement for Eligibility

Ivan A. Brikulsky
article en

Abstract

The article critically examines the characterization of the restriction established by Article 97 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation as a “civic allegiance” requirement. Without disputing this express constitutional restriction, the author questions whether a specific status rule may be transformed into a general category capable of justifying other restrictions on rights. Loyalty, allegiance, and solidarity are shown to provide no verifiable legal criterion and to create a risk of presumed untrustworthiness. It is argued that introducing such categories into the conceptual framework of constitutional law creates the risk of arbitrary restriction of rights and the substitution of legal analysis with an assessment of a citizen’s internal commitment to the state. The author further addresses the issue from the perspective of the principles of legitimate aim in the restriction of rights, constitutional equality, and the systematic interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Constitutional and municipal law
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon