Forced Mobilization Is Not Just Russia: 10 Countries With Conscription

Last updated: 16 September 2026

Photo: 2021 Military Mobilization - National Interagency Fire Center

Forced mobilization worldwide became a headline issue after Russia's September 2022 mobilization decree. However, Russia is far from the only country that forces citizens into military service under threat of severe punishment. Across the globe, at least 10 nations maintain conscription systems that violate fundamental human rights. From indefinite service in Eritrea to child soldier recruitment in South Sudan, forced mobilization worldwide represents a persistent and widespread abuse. For individuals seeking asylum, understanding these patterns is critical. This article examines the worst offenders and their implications for international protection claims.

Overview: 10 Countries With Abusive Forced Mobilization

Military conscription itself is not illegal under international law. Nevertheless, it becomes a human rights violation when it involves indefinite service, targets specific groups, imposes disproportionate punishment for evasion, or forces conscripts to commit war crimes. The following table summarizes the 10 most egregious offenders. Each country's system raises serious concerns under international humanitarian and human rights law.[1]

Eritrea: The World's Longest Conscription

Eritrea operates the most abusive conscription system on the planet. Proclamation 82/1995 mandates 18 months of national service. In reality, however, service has been indefinite since the 1998-2000 Eritrea-Ethiopia war. Conscripts serve for 20 years or more, performing both military duties and forced labour. The UN Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea concluded in 2016 that the country's national service programme amounted to enslavement.[2]

Deserters and draft evaders face imprisonment, torture, and a shoot-to-kill policy at the borders. Additionally, family members of evaders face collective punishment, including detention and fines. Consequently, UNHCR maintains that Eritrean nationals fleeing national service generally qualify for international protection. For more detail, see our country reports section.

North Korea: A Decade Under Arms

North Korea imposes the longest fixed-term conscription in the world. Men serve approximately 10 years, while women serve 7 years. In practice, these terms frequently extend further. Service begins at age 17 and dominates the most productive years of citizens' lives. Conscripts endure harsh conditions including malnutrition, forced labour on construction projects, and complete isolation from the outside world.[3]

Attempting to evade military service in North Korea carries catastrophic consequences. The regime treats evasion as political disloyalty, punishable by imprisonment in political labour camps (kwanliso) or execution. The entire family of a draft evader may face collective punishment under the "guilt by association" principle (yeon-jwa-je). As a result, there is no viable conscientious objection pathway.

Russia: Wartime Mobilization and Coercion

Russia's peacetime conscription requires 1 year of service for men aged 18-30. However, the September 2022 "partial mobilization" under Presidential Decree No. 647 fundamentally changed the situation. Hundreds of thousands of men were forcibly called up, with ethnic minorities from Dagestan, Buryatia, and Tuva bearing a disproportionate burden. Criminal penalties for draft evasion were dramatically increased, with desertion now carrying up to 15 years' imprisonment under wartime provisions.[4]

The UK Upper Tribunal in AB (Russia) [2024] recognized that Russian draft evaders may qualify for refugee status. This is particularly relevant since mobilized soldiers face deployment to a conflict involving credible allegations of war crimes. Our asylum guide provides detailed guidance on such claims.

Myanmar: Conscription Amid Civil War

Myanmar's military junta activated the People's Military Service Law in February 2024. This law requires men aged 18-35 and women aged 18-27 to serve up to 2 years, extendable to 5 years during emergencies. The junta imposed this law while prosecuting a brutal civil war against ethnic armed organizations and pro-democracy forces. Consequently, conscripts face deployment into a conflict characterised by widespread atrocities.[5]

The activation triggered mass panic. Thousands of young people fled to Thailand, India, and other neighbouring countries. Ethnic minorities, particularly those from areas controlled by resistance forces, face disproportionate targeting. Furthermore, Human Rights Watch documented cases where the military forced conscripts to participate in operations that constituted war crimes, including attacks on civilian populations.

Syria: Forced Into a Decade of War

Syrian law mandates 18 months of military service. In practice, however, the Assad regime extended service indefinitely during the civil war that began in 2011. Conscripts were forced to fight in a conflict marked by chemical weapons attacks, sieges of civilian areas, and systematic torture. Thousands of young men fled Syria specifically to avoid conscription into a military committing documented war crimes.[6]

Despite the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, the security situation remains volatile. Armed factions continue to operate forced recruitment. The CJEU held in EZ v Germany (C-238/19) that refusal to perform military service in a conflict involving war crimes can ground a refugee claim. This precedent remains directly relevant to Syrian conscription cases.

Tajikistan and Turkmenistan: Central Asian Conscription Abuse

Both Tajikistan and Turkmenistan maintain 2-year mandatory military service. However, the conditions during service are what distinguish these systems. In Tajikistan, military police conduct street round-ups of draft-age men, effectively kidnapping them into service. Hazing (dedovshchina) is endemic and regularly results in deaths. Human Rights Watch has documented dozens of cases of soldiers dying in barracks from beatings, malnutrition, and untreated illness.[7]

Turkmenistan's military service operates in even greater secrecy. Conscripts face forced labour on state construction projects, severe isolation, and denial of contact with families. Draft evasion carries up to 2 years' imprisonment under the Criminal Code. International monitoring is virtually impossible due to the country's extreme isolation. Both countries' conscription systems raise serious concerns about forced labour and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

South Sudan and Somalia: Forced Recruitment in Conflict Zones

South Sudan's military forces and allied militias routinely recruit through force, including the recruitment of children under 18. The UN documented thousands of child soldier cases since the civil war began in 2013. Government forces and opposition armed groups both engage in forced recruitment, often targeting specific ethnic communities. Refusal to join carries the risk of extrajudicial execution.[8]

In Somalia, the armed group al-Shabaab conducts forced recruitment campaigns across areas under its control. Young men and boys face conscription into an organization designated as a terrorist group by the United States, EU, and United Kingdom. Those who refuse face execution or severe punishment. Families are threatened if they attempt to hide eligible members. Importantly, forced recruitment by non-state actors also grounds international protection claims under the Refugee Convention.

Ukraine: Wartime Mobilization Since 2022

Ukraine expanded its mobilization laws significantly following Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. The mobilization law signed in April 2024 lowered the draft age from 27 to 25 and tightened restrictions on leaving the country for military-age men. Draft evasion carries up to 5 years' imprisonment. Territorial recruitment centres have been documented using aggressive methods, including detaining men at checkpoints and public places.[9]

Ukraine's situation is distinct because the country faces an active invasion. Nevertheless, individual asylum claims may arise where conscription is enforced in a discriminatory manner or where conscientious objectors face prosecution without alternative civilian service. The assessment requires careful case-by-case analysis, as detailed in our asylum guide.

Conscientious Objection: A Right Denied

The right to conscientious objection is recognized under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee. Despite this, the majority of the 10 countries listed above provide no legal framework for conscientious objection. Eritrea, North Korea, Myanmar, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, South Sudan, and Somalia offer zero accommodation for those who refuse to serve on grounds of conscience.[10]

Russia formally permits alternative civilian service under Federal Law No. 113-FZ. In practice, however, applications are routinely rejected, and the process is deliberately obstructive. Ukraine suspended the right to conscientious objection during martial law, though some religious exemptions remain. The absence of meaningful conscientious objection rights strengthens asylum claims significantly. The UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria (paragraph 171) recognizes that punishment for refusal to serve may amount to persecution where no alternative service exists.

Legal Framework for Asylum Claims Based on Forced Conscription

International refugee law provides protection for individuals fleeing forced conscription in certain circumstances. The Refugee Convention does not automatically grant refugee status to draft evaders. However, several established exceptions apply. First, punishment for evasion that is disproportionately severe may amount to persecution. Second, discriminatory application of conscription laws targeting particular ethnic or religious groups constitutes persecution on Convention grounds.[11]

Third, and critically, the CJEU held in Shepherd v Germany (C-472/13) that refusing military service in a conflict involving war crimes can ground a refugee claim under Article 9(2)(e) of the Qualification Directive. This principle applies to conscripts from Russia, Myanmar, Syria, and other countries where military forces commit documented atrocities. For a detailed legal analysis, see our article on conscription and asylum law.

Where a person is likely to be involved in actions falling under the exclusion clauses of the 1951 Convention, desertion or draft-evasion could be considered as being on the right side of the law.
UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, para. 171

Additionally, Article 3 ECHR and the principle of non-refoulement prevent the return of individuals to countries where they face torture or inhuman treatment. Given the documented conditions of military service in Eritrea, North Korea, Tajikistan, and other countries, this prohibition provides an additional layer of protection. Asylum decision-makers should consult expert witnesses for country-specific evidence when assessing these claims.

Conclusion

Forced mobilization worldwide is not a single-country phenomenon. At least 10 countries maintain conscription systems that violate international human rights standards. The abuses range from indefinite service and forced labour in Eritrea to street kidnapping in Tajikistan and child soldier recruitment in South Sudan. For asylum seekers fleeing these systems, international law offers established pathways to protection.

The key factors in any asylum claim based on forced conscription include the severity of punishment for evasion, the availability of conscientious objection, the discriminatory application of conscription, and whether the military is involved in war crimes. Legal representatives and expert witnesses should present detailed country evidence alongside the applicable legal framework. The stakes are high: returning a person to face forced mobilization under abusive conditions can result in years of forced labour, torture, or death.