Administrative and legal regulation under martial law in Ukraine: challenges, risks, and directions for improvement

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the issues related to administrative and legal regulation in Ukraine under martial law, taking into account the challenges of public security, human rights protection, and the efficiency of public authorities, as well as to develop proposals for improving the regulatory framework and administrative practices. The research methodology is based on systemic, structural-functional, and comparative legal approaches, involving the analysis of legal acts, public administration practices, and academic sources. Methods of logical generalization, legal norm interpretation, and empirical analysis are also applied. The article examines the peculiarities of administrative and legal regulation of executive authorities’ activities in Ukraine under martial law. The relevance of the study is determined by the unprecedented challenges posed by the full-scale Russian military aggression against Ukraine, which has significantly affected the functioning of public administration and altered the legal framework within which executive bodies operate. In times of war, the state faces the dual task of ensuring effective governance and national security while preserving the rule of law, democratic control, and civil rights. These competing priorities make it essential to analyze the current state and transformation of administrative law in the context of martial law. The main purpose of the research is to identify how martial law influences the legal regulation of executive power activities, to assess the risks of excessive concentration of authority, and to determine ways to ensure the accountability, transparency, and legality of public administration under exceptional circumstances. The author focuses on the mechanisms of administrative appeal, parliamentary oversight, and the balance between the need for swift administrative decisions and safeguarding individual rights and freedoms. The study reveals that, under martial law, there is a tendency to reduce the level of transparency and public control over executive authorities due to security considerations and the need for centralized decision-making. However, such tendencies may weaken democratic institutions and reduce citizens' opportunities to challenge administrative actions. The legal framework allows for temporary restriction of certain constitutional rights, but the author argues that this should not lead to the erosion of fundamental legal principles. The paper stresses the importance of maintaining institutional mechanisms for oversight and public accountability even in wartime. The results of the study suggest that while certain limitations on administrative procedures may be justified during martial law, it is crucial to clearly define their scope and duration in legislation. The author proposes several directions for improving administrative legislation, including strengthening the role of administrative justice, increasing the institutional capacity of oversight bodies, and ensuring citizens’ access to effective legal remedies.