PROTECTING THE COGNITIVE FREEDOM AND MENTAL WELL-BEING OF MILITARY PERSONNEL IN THE DIGITAL AGE

Abstract

Purpose. The aim of this study is to conduct a comprehensive theoretical and legal analysis of the content and mechanisms for protecting the cognitive freedom and mental integrity of military personnel in the context of the rapid digitalization of the military sphere. The work aims to substantiate the concept of a combatant’s “digital dignity” and to define the legal limits of permissible algorithmic and neurotechnological influence on the consciousness of subjects of military service relations in the context of contemporary human rights standards. Methods. The methodological basis of the study consists of a combination of general scientific and specialized legal methods. The systemic-structural method was used to determine the architecture of cognitive rights within the general system of anthropocentric law. The dialectical approach allowed us to reveal the contradictions between the technological expediency of using AI in military affairs and the imperative of preserving the individual’s mental autonomy. The hermeneutic method was used to interpret international “neuro-rights” standards in the context of their implementation in military legislation. Comparative analysis was applied to compare approaches to regulating cyberpsychological security in different legal systems. Results. It has been demonstrated that in the era of hybrid threats, a servicemember’s cognitive freedom is transforming from a purely philosophical category into a fundamental object of legal protection. The rapid adoption of Big Data, neural interfaces, and predictive analytics algorithms creates risks of “algorithmic determination” of a servicemember’s behavior, which threatens their agency. A definition of a military servicemember’s cognitive freedom is formulated as the right to independently form beliefs and make decisions without unauthorized external interference in neurobiological and mental processes. It has been found that existing personal data protection regimes are insufficient to prevent the threats of “surveillance capitalism” and cognitive manipulation. The necessity of expanding the catalog of “fourth-generation” human rights by including the right to freedom from algorithmic influence and the right to psychological security has been substantiated. Conclusions. It is concluded that effective protection of military personnel’s cognitive freedom requires a shift in the paradigm of military law toward strengthening anthropocentric principles. Mental well-being must be regarded as an integral component of combat effectiveness, requiring not only technical but also normative and value-based protection. The author proposes the development and implementation of a “Code of Ethics for Digital Interaction in the Armed Forces” to regulate the limits of the use of psychotechnologies and neuromarketing tools with respect to personnel. It is noted that the development of digital literacy and critical thinking is a form of realizing the right to cognitive self-defense. It is determined that legal doctrine must stay ahead of technological development, creating reliable safeguards against the digital erosion of human dignity in the context of modern and future armed conflicts. Ensuring cognitive de-escalation and preserving the mental sovereignty of the individual are recognized as key vectors for reforming the institution of human rights in the defense sector.