1. Introduction

The participation of military personnel in external theatres of operations entails the assumption of significant risks, with an impact not only on physical integrity but also on mental health and long-term social and professional functioning. These effects may persist long after the completion of missions, influencing the process of professional and family reintegration. In this context, the state’s responsibility towards veterans from theatres of operations must be understood as a continuous legal and social obligation, not merely a form of symbolic recognition.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union explicitly affirms that „human dignity is inviolable” and that it „must be respected and protected” (Art. 1). Furthermore, the right to physical and mental integrity is enshrined as a fundamental right of every person (Art. 3). These principles apply directly to military personnel returning from theatres of operations, regardless of whether they hold the status of active military, reserve, or civilian veteran.

2. The legal and normative framework

The protection of veterans from theatres of operations is grounded in fundamental legal principles concerning human dignity, equality and social solidarity. At the European level, the Charter of Fundamental Rights places the individual „at the heart of the Union’s action” and underlines the binding character of the protection of fundamental rights across all public policies.

In the military sphere, these principles are complemented by strategic documents addressing good governance and institutional integrity. The NATO Manual on Building Integrity in Operations underlines that „integrity is the link between behaviour and principles” and that it is closely associated with good governance in the military environment (NATO, 2020). The document highlights that transparent and accountable institutions are essential for maintaining the trust of military personnel and for the credibility of the armed forces.

From this perspective, the state’s responsibility is not limited to formal compliance with legislation, but entails the creation of effective mechanisms for the protection and support of veterans. The gap between the existence of rights at the normative level and effective access to those rights represents a recurring issue in the field of military social policies.

3. Mental health in theatres of operations

A large number of military personnel participating in missions within external theatres of operations are exposed to situations that can pose genuine threats to their psychological and physical integrity. Adapting to new routines, distance from family and the lack of emotional support can predispose military personnel to major depressive disorders, characterised by depressed mood, anhedonia and feelings of worthlessness, which may be accompanied by anxiety symptoms — particularly given that vigilance and focus on personal and collective safety are heightened in such environments.

The significant mental health problems faced by veterans and military personnel in theatres of operations are acute stress and post-traumatic stress disorder. Although in DSM-IV-TR (2000) these were classified as anxiety disorders, DSM-5-TR (2022) deemed it important to develop a dedicated chapter for these distinct clinical entities, entitled „Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorders”. Acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder share in common the exposure of individuals to trauma, involving injury, threat to the physical integrity of the individual or others, and suicidal attempts. Symptoms include re-experiencing of the trauma, nightmares, flashbacks, dissociation, social isolation, hypervigilance and irritability (American Psychiatric Association, 2022).

4. Social policies and the multidimensional model of well-being

Military social policies serve to transform legally enshrined rights into concrete benefits for veterans and their families. The literature highlights that the well-being of military personnel is essential both for the efficiency of the military institution and for social stability.

The well-being model proposed by Bowles et al. (2017) highlights the multidimensional nature of this concept, emphasising that well-being is influenced by the domain of work, personal life and the intersection between them. From this perspective, the veteran is affected not only physically, but also emotionally, within the family and socially. A purely compensatory approach, focused exclusively on allowances or material benefits, is insufficient. The state has the obligation to adopt proactive policies that include access to medical and psychological services, support for professional reintegration and family counselling, thereby preventing social marginalisation and the deterioration of mental health.

5. The underdiagnosis of PTSD and the role of leadership

The underdiagnosis of PTSD is a major problem. Military personnel frequently avoid approaching superiors or competent institutions for diagnosis and access to pharmacological or psychotherapeutic treatment, both due to stigma and fears of being removed from service. This often leads to self-medication, most commonly with alcohol to reduce anxiety, creating a vicious cycle that can exacerbate depressive episodes and generate somatic comorbidities. It is therefore necessary to educate military personnel regarding the onset of these symptoms and disorders in order to facilitate their early recognition.

From an ethical and institutional perspective, the role of leadership is essential, as leaders directly influence the moral climate of the organisation. An ethical climate encourages the reporting of problems and access to support, reducing the risk of veterans feeling abandoned by the system.

Furthermore, the resilience of the military leader plays an important role in protecting personnel. Badiu and Țică (2023) emphasise that the military environment is „a generator of occupational stress” and that resilience is essential for adaptation and performance. This resilience must be supported institutionally, including during the post-mission phase.

6. The moral dimension of state responsibility

Beyond formal compliance with legislation, the state’s responsibility towards veterans must also be analysed from a moral perspective. The mere fact that the state fulfils minimum legal requirements does not guarantee the genuine protection of veterans. Barnes and Doty (2010) emphasise that ethical leadership entails not merely conforming to norms, but actively assuming responsibility towards those in one’s charge or in the care of the institution.

7. Conclusions

The state’s responsibility in guaranteeing the rights of veterans from theatres of operations is complex and multidimensional. The analysis of the legal framework and practical situations highlights the need for an integrated approach, grounded in human rights, good governance and institutional ethics.

A state that genuinely assumes this responsibility invests in effective mechanisms for support, prevention and reintegration, thereby ensuring the authentic respect of human dignity and protecting the integrity of those who have served in theatres of operations.