The Statehood Code in the Focus of Expert Discussion: Legal Nature, Social Function and Challenges of Codification
In the context of a full-scale war and a profound transformation of state institutions, Ukraine faced the need to form a holistic legal architecture for the protection of statehood and determine the systemic status of its defenders. One of the key tools for realizing this goal was the draft Code of Ukraine “On the Protection of Statehood, Independence and the Status of State Defenders,” which has been the subject of a wide professional discussion.
An expert discussion of the draft Statehood Code organized by the Ukrainian National Lobbyists Association in Kyiv brought together MPs, leading scholars, representatives of the security sector, the bar, veterans, and the academic community. The discussion demonstrated both the strategic importance of codifying this area and the existence of conceptual, legal and methodological problems that require in-depth elaboration.
The event was moderated by Inna Silantieva, who emphasized the importance of creating a professional environment for discussing strategic legislative initiatives. Oleksiy Shevchuk, Chairman of the Board of the Ukrainian National Lobbyists Association, Academician Vasyl Kostytskyi, Doctor of Law Lyudmyla Kozhura, Member of the Board of the Association Oleksandr Chernykh, Professor Serhiy Lysenko, and other representatives of the scientific and expert community took an active part in the discussion. Representatives of leading scientific and educational institutions, including the Vadym Hetman Kyiv National Economic University, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, Institute of Lawmaking and Scientific and Legal Expertise of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, as well as representatives of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, also joined the discussion.
Conceptual contradictions and the question of the expediency of codification
One of the key topics of discussion was the functional feasibility and conceptual completeness of the proposed Code. Taras Tarasenko, Member of Parliament of Ukraine, expressed a fundamentally critical position on the current version of the document, emphasizing its limited practical effectiveness.
“At the level of law, the code does not answer the question of what changes for a particular person. Then what’s the point of working on it if it doesn’t change anything for a particular person,” said Taras Tarasenko.
He also drew attention to methodological shortcomings in the preparation of the draft, noting that “they were simply combined mechanically. In fact, it was just a combination of four different regulatory documents into one without any real analysis.” Such an approach, in his opinion, creates a risk of internal inconsistency of regulations and reduces the systemic value of the document.
An additional argument in favor of the need for a substantial revision of the document was the expert opinion of the academic community. According to the MP, “three universities gave negative opinions on the code,” which indicates the existence of deeper structural and conceptual problems.
At the same time, Oleksiy Shevchuk, Chairman of the Board of the Ukrainian National Lobbyists Association, emphasized the strategic importance of the codification initiative itself.
Oleksiy Shevchuk emphasized: “A document has appeared that today directly involves the entire law enforcement system, because a large number of law enforcement officers are integrated into the armed forces. That is, a document has appeared that directly affects the lives of citizens from the law enforcement system.”
According to him, the very idea of creating such a regulatory act is extremely important for the formation of systematic legal regulation: “I think this is a good initiative to combine all the norms and finally adopt a codified document that can be used by people who are currently in the Armed Forces, who have served and are veterans.”
Shevchuk also emphasized the long-term significance of the document, noting:
“This is a fundamental document, because postwar Ukraine will have a large number of people who have served in the military, who have paid tribute to the state, and we need to hear their opinion.” At the same time, he acknowledged that the code needs to be finalized, and it is both specific and declarative.
Problems of legal technique and compliance with international standards
The panelists paid special attention to the issues of legal technique and compliance of the draft with international standards. According to Natalia Kaminska, the key shortcomings of the document include “insufficient consideration of the experience of foreign countries; the existing practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights are also insufficiently taken into account.” She also drew attention to the problems of terminological clarity and the need to introduce a gender-sensitive approach: “it was optimally proposed that in the introductory part, where the terminology is used, it should be stated that the Code has a gender-sensitive approach to the terminology of this draft legal act.”
At the same time, Kaminska emphasized the strategic potential of codification, stressing that “this is a very big deal, but there is still a lot of work to be done in this direction so that the document is perfect and looks like a unified, conceptual act that is not temporary but would have a long-lasting and effective effect.”
The paternalistic model and the risks of declarative legal norms
Doctor of Law Lyudmyla Kozhura drew attention to the conceptual risks associated with the dominance of compensatory logic in the draft document. According to her, “the draft, unfortunately, largely reproduces the paternalistic model. This approach, in her opinion, is strategically risky, because “if we leave the model exclusively compensatory, we risk a crisis of confidence in institutions.”
She also emphasized that the draft does not meet classical codification standards: “The document does not meet the classic requirements for a codified act. Instead, we have a framework, programmatic document with a large number of declarative norms. In fact, it is a public policy concept, not a codification act.” According to her, such an approach can lead to a complication of legal regulation: “Instead of simplifying the legal framework, we will get the parallel existence of several regulatory arrays, conflicts and extended bylaws.”
Kozhura paid special attention to the legal nature of declarative norms, noting that “the document widely uses moral categories such as ‘gratitude’, ‘respectful attitude’, and ‘decent life’. If the criteria for a “decent life” are not defined, no standards are set, and no protection procedure is provided, then such norms do not create a subjective right. And then we have not a legal mechanism, but a political declaration. And a declaration without a mechanism is a potential source of disappointment.”
Codification as a strategic necessity: constitutional and systemic dimension
Despite the critical assessments, academician Vasyl Kostytskyi supported the idea of codification, emphasizing its constitutional significance. “I cannot support those who deny the codification proposal. I support the need for codification and preparation of the code,” he said.
Kostytskyi also emphasized that despite the presence of declarative elements, the document contains a significant number of specific norms: “I cannot agree that this is a declarative document. It contains a lot of very specific norms. But it needs to be finalized.” He emphasized the importance of a systematic approach to codification, which should include both the incorporation of existing rules and the modernization of the legal framework.
Social function of the Code and challenges of practical implementation
Considerable attention was paid to the social function of the Code as a tool for ensuring the rights and guarantees of state defenders. As Sergiy Kucherenko emphasized, an effective social protection system is a key condition for maintaining the state’s combat capability:
“If we don’t provide social guarantees for the deeds of the military, for the victory they are winning today, then we cannot hope to keep the best of the best in our Armed Forces.”
He also drew attention to the outdated nature of the current regulatory framework: “Now we have the Law of Ukraine on the Status of War Veterans and Guarantees of Their Social Protection, a law from 1992. Many of its provisions are somewhat outdated.” According to him, the adoption of the Code will require a comprehensive modernization of legislation: “We understand that if the Code is adopted in this version, we will have to radically change the legislation on social protection of military personnel and their families.”
Conclusions and development prospects
The expert discussion demonstrated that the draft Statehood Code is an important legislative initiative aimed at forming a new model of legal regulation in the field of statehood protection and social security of its defenders. At the same time, the current version of the document requires significant conceptual, structural, legal, and technical revision.
The discussion demonstrated the existence of two complementary positions: on the one hand, a critical awareness of the imperfections of the current version, and on the other hand, a strategic understanding of the need to create a codified normative act as the basis for legal regulation of post-war society.
As Oleksiy Shevchuk emphasized: “The document regulating the post-war society should be a transitional stage for our country, and its preparation should take into account the positions of all stakeholders.”
Thus, further work on the Code should be based on a broad expert dialogue, an interdisciplinary approach and consideration of the practical needs of both the state and its defenders. Only under such conditions will codification of the relevant area be able to become an effective tool for strengthening statehood, increasing trust in state institutions and forming a sustainable legal system in post-war Ukraine.
