Besides the military problems caused by Russian-Ukrainian war, started in 2022, the further occupation of several Ukrainian regions resulted in existence of the two legal systems – the Ukrainian that was enacted previously and the one that was formed by the occupation administration. Appointment of the officials, conducting illegal referendums, adoption of the legal acts and local regulations, forming of the local occupation administration is frequently justified using the word “legality”. The article is devoted to analysis of the term “legality”, and the conclusion is made that there is a difference in using this term for democratic and nondemocratic countries. If we use “legality” in democratic countries it is pretended that the form of legal act provides for meeting the other democratic requirements, while in nondemocratic countries it means just the legal form itself. While the occupation takes place in Ukraine as well as in the other nondemocratic countries, “legality” could mean only “legal form of the act”. It should be regarded as so in the war times and cannot mean an act which is enacted according to the legal principles automatically. This situation puts the citizens before the choice of what acts to recognize and to obey. The examples are given on how Ukraine makes efforts to settle legal relations on the occupied territories and acts in contradictory circumstances, regarding the generally recognized principles of law. One of them is the legal certainty principle.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the category “legality”, “legitimacy” and “legal certainty” in contemporary Ukrainian situation.

To achieve this goal the system-structural method was used together with the comparative, method of analysis and synthesis, formal-logical method and the generalization method.

As the result of the research made it is stated that some of the aspects of legal certainty principle, such as clarity, sequence of the legal regulation, stability and predictability of the legal norms are under the threat in the times of war, and one of the most affecting is the demand of the legitimate expectations. Terms “legality” and “legitimacy” are frequently used by the occupying power in order to justify their actions and to make them look like legal acts. Although, just the form itself does not mean that the legal act meets all the principles and requirements of law. The arguments are given to distinguish “legality” in democratic and nondemocratic countries. It is stated that legal form is not enough in nondemocratic states to make the act legal, so “legality” should be regarded just as a form of the legal act. While in democratic countries “legality” means not only the form but the requirements to the law, basically, in accordance with its principles.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Pankratova V, Pryntsyp pravovoi vyznachenosti: zahalnoteoretychna kharakterystyka (VAITE 2016) (in Ukrainian).

Encyclopedias

2. Riznyk S, ‘Lehalnist’, Entsyklopediia Suchasnoi Ukrainy (Dziuba I, Zhukovskyi A, Zhelezniak M ta inshi redkol, NAN Ukrainy, NTSh, Instytut entsyklopedychnykh doslidzhen NAN Ukrainy 2016) <https://esu.com.ua/article-54010> (accessed: 21.01.2023) (in Ukrainian).

3. Yurydychna entsyklopediia, t 3 (Shemshuchenko Iu holov red kol, Ukrainska entsyklopediia 2001) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

4. Dudchenko V, ‘Lehitymnist i lehalnist: pytannia spivvidnoshennia’ (2005) 26 Aktualni problemy derzhavy i prava 58–64 (in Ukrainian).

5. Fedorenko V, Yukhymiuk O, Adler O, ‘Porushennia osnovopolozhnykh prav liudyny vnaslidok viiskovoi arhesii Rosiiskoi Federatsii proty Ukrainy u 2022 rotsi ta mekhanizmy prytiahnennia voiennykh zlochyntsiv do yurydychnoi vidpovidalnosti’ [2022] 2 (20) Ekspert: paradyhmy yurydychnykh nauk i derzhavnoho upravlinnia 32–59 (in Ukrainian).

6. Kalienichenko L, ‘Poniattia ta oznaky derzhavno-pravovoho prymusu’ [2017] 3 (78) Visnyk KhNUVS 21–30 (in Ukrainian).

7. Koval O, ‘Teoretyko-pravovi zasady lehitymnosti derzhavnoi vlady’ (2016) 23 Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Seriia: Yurysprudentsiia 32–5 (in Ukrainian).

8. Muzyka I, ‘Problema lehalnosti ta lehitymnosti norm prava u sotsiolohichnomu pravorozuminni: istoryko-pravovyi aspekt’ (2011) 3 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 31–5 (in Ukrainian).

9. Nazarenko O, ‘Lehitymnist ta lehalnist derzhavnoi vlady: naukovo-pravovyi analiz’ [2017] 4 (2) Pravo i suspilstvo 22–5 (in Ukrainian).

10. Onishchenko N, ‘Do pytannia pro rozvytok demokratychnoho prava’ (2011) 51 Derzhava i pravo 3-11 (in Ukrainian).

11. Rabinovych S, ‘Konstytutsiini revoliutsii v Ukraini z perspektyvy “chystoho pravoznavstva” Hansa Kelzena’ (2016) 2 Yurydychnyi visnyk 184–90 (in Ukrainian).

12. Shambura D, ‘“Ofitsiine parvo” ta “neofitsiine parvo”: eksplikatsiia poniat u konteksti suchasnykh teorii pravorozuminnia [2019] 42 (2) Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Seriia Yurysprudentsiia 28–32 (in Ukrainian).

13. Smokovych M, ‘Pryntsyp pravovoi vyznachenosti v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi: okremi teoretychni zasady ta praktychne zastosuvannia’ (2020) 88 Aktualni problemy derzhavy i prava 116–27 (in Ukrainian).

14. Zaiets A, Buromenskyi M, ‘Shchodo lehitymnosti diiuchoi sohodni vlady v Ukraini’ (2014) 5 Biuleten Ministerstva yustytsii 21–30 (in Ukrainian).

15. Zharovska I, ‘Lehitymnist derzhavnoi vlady u demokratychnii derzhavi’ [2009] 3 (31) Universytetski naukovi zapysky 20–3 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

16. Koval, O, ‘Lehitymnist derzhavnoi vlady: spivvidnoshennia pravovykh i moralnykh aspektiv realizatsii’ (dys kand yuryd nayk, 2017) (in Ukrainian).