A recently proposed legislative initiative by MP Hayk Sargsyan, allowing Armenian male citizens to undertake shortened military service in exchange for a financial contribution, has sparked widespread public debate and even disputes within the ruling party.
According to the initiative, young men can reduce their service term by making a payment to the state budget. Specifically, citizens can choose to serve one month by paying 24 million AMD or four months by paying 18 million AMD. Additionally, the maximum conscription age is raised from 27 to 32 years. The changes also affect the procedure for renouncing Armenian citizenship. The fee for renouncing citizenship is set at 15 million AMD for individuals under 18, while for women under 18 and men over 18, it is 150,000 AMD.
According to Hayk Sargsyan, the bill’s primary goal is to “ensure a fair, transparent, and predictable approach to addressing draft evasion.” He emphasizes that over recent decades, Armenia has seen informal practices where young men living abroad found unofficial ways to avoid service. The new mechanism, he argues, will establish clear rules for draft evaders and curb corruption, as all payments will go directly to the state budget.
The bill pays particular attention to the state fee for renouncing citizenship. The proposed differentiation raises serious questions. In essence, the same legal act—renouncing citizenship—is “priced” differently based on the applicant’s gender and age. This naturally raises the question: does this violate the principle of equality enshrined in Armenia’s Constitution and international legal documents, including the European Convention on Human Rights? This is arguably a clear form of gender-based discrimination, as gender becomes the basis for financial inequality. Such a provision could be challenged as a disproportionate and discriminatory measure lacking sufficient legal justification.
The structure of the proposed reform raises numerous concerns. Notably, the bill does not offer intermediate service formats, such as 12- or 18-month terms, nor does it allow for flexible service completion—such as splitting the two-year service into two periods with a break, for instance, a year before and after university. It’s worth noting that most prospective conscripts view the duration of service as the main issue, as a two-year break, especially during studies, creates significant challenges.
International experience demonstrates more flexible approaches. Some countries offer varied service conditions, including options for distributed service. Thus, the current proposal resembles an economic compromise rather than a comprehensive reform. It fails to address the structural issues of military service.