TRANSFORMATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES IN UKRAINE UNDER MARTIAL LAW

Abstract

The article addresses the governance of territorial communities in Ukraine during the fifth year of the full-scale war. It emphasizes that military aggression has affected nearly all regions of the country and significantly changed the conditions of their functioning. Missile attacks, artillery shelling, bombing, and drone strikes destroy settlements, production facilities, and critical infrastructure, especially energy systems. As a result, the daily life of territories is disrupted, while public authorities face greater difficulties in fulfilling urgent social responsibilities. Migration has also intensified: the number of internally displaced persons has increased, many people have left the country, and some settlements have lost a considerable share of their permanent population even outside the areas of direct hostilities. Under these circumstances, the territorial dimension of the war has become increasingly relevant in discussions on future peace arrangements, and the governance of communities remains important for both research and practice.

The study notes that each country develops its own model of territorial administration. During wartime, the usual relations between national, regional, and local authorities change considerably, since coordinated action, faster decision-making, and a more flexible distribution of powers become especially necessary. The effectiveness of this interaction determines whether the state can preserve administrative capacity, protect territorial integrity, and respond to security threats. The aim of the article is to identify the specific features of territorial governance under martial law and ongoing hostilities in Ukraine.

The historical background of regional administration in Ukraine is also considered. Particular attention is given to the governance system of the Ukrainian Cossack state. The Zaporizhian Host was administered by the General Officer Staff led by the Hetman, while its territory was organized into regiments and hundreds. Colonels and regimental officers exercised authority over substantial territorial units; for this reason, regiments may be broadly compared with present-day regions. Cossack hundreds represented a lower tier of territorial organization and, in a general historical analogy, may be associated with modern enlarged territorial communities.