Legal status of aliens under martial law: international law perspective and experience of US Supreme Court

Abstract

The article studies the international legal status of aliens and stateless persons under conditions of martial law, armed conflict, and counter-terrorism operations through the prism of constitutional law, international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and comparative constitutional jurisprudence. The research proceeds from the premise that although modern constitutions and international legal instruments recognize the principle of equality before the law and guarantee fundamental rights to all individuals under a state's jurisdiction, the legal status of aliens during periods of war is characterized by a differentiated legal regime that depends on nationality, immigration status, territorial presence, procedural status, and the requirements of national security. The study aims to determine the scope of constitutional and international legal guarantees afforded to aliens during armed conflict and to identify the legal criteria governing permissible restrictions on their rights. Particular attention is devoted to the relationship between state sovereignty, migration control, military necessity, and the protection of fundamental human rights. It is argued that the rights of aliens derive from the sovereign right of the state to regulate entry, residence, and removal from its territory, while simultaneously remaining constrained by obligations arising under international human rights law, international humanitarian law, refugee law, and customary international law. The article employs comparative legal, doctrinal, historical, and systemic methods of legal analysis. Particular emphasis is placed on the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States, which provides one of the most comprehensive constitutional approaches to balancing individual rights with national security concerns during periods of war and emergency. The evolution of judicial doctrine is traced through a series of landmark decisions, including Graham v. Richardson (1971), Plyler v. Doe (1982), Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei (1953), Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), Rasul v. Bush (2004), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), Boumediene v. Bush (2008), Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), Trump v. Hawaii (2018), and Korematsu v. United States (1944). The analysis demonstrates that the level of judicial protection afforded to aliens varies considerably depending on whether restrictions are imposed by state or federal authorities, whether the individual is lawfully present within the territory of the United States, and whether the case concerns immigration control, armed conflict, or counter-terrorism measures. The jurisprudence further illustrates the evolving balance between constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection, on the one hand, and the state's legitimate interests in safeguarding national security, on the other. The practical significance of the research is substantiated in the context of Ukraine's ongoing armed conflict. It is argued that the Ukrainian legal system will increasingly confront issues relating to the legal status of nationals of the aggressor state, stateless persons, refugees, asylum seekers, foreign volunteers, mercenaries, prisoners of war, deported civilians, and other categories of non-citizens. The comparative analysis of U.S. constitutional jurisprudence offers valuable guidance for balancing national security imperatives with constitutional guarantees and international legal obligations. The article concludes that the development of coherent legal standards governing the status of aliens under martial law constitutes an essential element of contemporary international legal regulation and represents an increasingly important component of post-conflict governance and the broader doctrine of jus post bellum.