Selective Reconfiguration of the Rule of Law under Prolonged Emergency:
Ukraine 2021 – 2025
Security and the Rule of Law
Dr. Van Puyvelde
Dr. Lesch
Group 17(D)
S4878639, S3682349, S3715930,
S3477061 and S2462060
1 March 2026
Word count: 1968
, 1. Introduction
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a military, geopolitical
and constitutional test for the Ukrainian state. The fast shift to prolonged martial law altered
the conditions under which public authority was exercised, raising questions about resilience
of the rule of law under sustained security crises (Dmytriieva, 2025). While emergency
governance is often associated with executive centralisation and rights restrictions, its effects
on the rule of law are neither uniform nor linear.
This paper analyses how Ukraine’s rule-of-law configuration evolved between 2021 and
2025 using a longitudinal comparative design. It adopts Bedner’s (2010, p. 48) elementary
approach, which conceptualises the rule of law as a configuration of interrelated procedural
elements, substantive elements and controlling mechanisms. This framework allows the
analysis to trace differentiated responses across rule-of-law dimensions under prolonged
emergency governance, rather than assuming a single trajectory of decline.
Empirically, the analysis draws on data from the World Justice Project Rule of Law
Index, focusing selectively on indicators corresponding to Bedner’s categories. The central
argument is that Ukraine’s government during the war has led to a unique pattern of
transformation. Procedural legality has generally endured due to constitutional continuity
mechanisms and the legal structuring of executive action. On the other hand, substantive
elements, especially civil liberties, have diminished significantly, and controlling mechanisms
show a mixed pattern of partial institutional resilience, losing horizontal accountability.
The paper first outlines the theoretical framework and methodological approach, then
analyses changes across procedural, substantive and institutional dimensions, and concludes
with reflections on emergency governance and the limits of indicator-based analysis.
2
Ukraine 2021 – 2025
Security and the Rule of Law
Dr. Van Puyvelde
Dr. Lesch
Group 17(D)
S4878639, S3682349, S3715930,
S3477061 and S2462060
1 March 2026
Word count: 1968
, 1. Introduction
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a military, geopolitical
and constitutional test for the Ukrainian state. The fast shift to prolonged martial law altered
the conditions under which public authority was exercised, raising questions about resilience
of the rule of law under sustained security crises (Dmytriieva, 2025). While emergency
governance is often associated with executive centralisation and rights restrictions, its effects
on the rule of law are neither uniform nor linear.
This paper analyses how Ukraine’s rule-of-law configuration evolved between 2021 and
2025 using a longitudinal comparative design. It adopts Bedner’s (2010, p. 48) elementary
approach, which conceptualises the rule of law as a configuration of interrelated procedural
elements, substantive elements and controlling mechanisms. This framework allows the
analysis to trace differentiated responses across rule-of-law dimensions under prolonged
emergency governance, rather than assuming a single trajectory of decline.
Empirically, the analysis draws on data from the World Justice Project Rule of Law
Index, focusing selectively on indicators corresponding to Bedner’s categories. The central
argument is that Ukraine’s government during the war has led to a unique pattern of
transformation. Procedural legality has generally endured due to constitutional continuity
mechanisms and the legal structuring of executive action. On the other hand, substantive
elements, especially civil liberties, have diminished significantly, and controlling mechanisms
show a mixed pattern of partial institutional resilience, losing horizontal accountability.
The paper first outlines the theoretical framework and methodological approach, then
analyses changes across procedural, substantive and institutional dimensions, and concludes
with reflections on emergency governance and the limits of indicator-based analysis.
2
