Martial Law and Democracy: Constitutional Lessons for a Nation at War

Since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has lived under martial law—a legal state of exception invoked to preserve the country’s sovereignty and survival. Now in its fourth year, the continuity of martial law has provoked profound questions about the relationship between national security and democratic governance. Can a constitutional democracy endure under prolonged emergency rule? How does a nation at war balance the imperatives of civil liberty with the demands of national defence? Ukraine’s experience offers lessons of broader significance for democratic states confronting existential threats in the twenty-first century.

The Legal Basis of Martial Law

Ukraine’s martial law regime is grounded in Article 106 of the Constitution and regulated by the Law “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law”, which dates from 2015 but builds upon a framework established in the post-Soviet era. On 24 February 2022, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy issued a decree imposing martial law across the territory of Ukraine, later approved by the Verkhovna Rada. Since then, the decree has been extended more than a dozen times, most recently into the second half of 2025.

The declaration empowers the executive branch, especially the President and military command, to restrict civil rights and reorient state institutions towards wartime exigencies. Among other things, martial law permits:

• suspension of elections and referenda,

• limitations on freedom of movement,

• curfews and property requisitioning,

• restrictions on the freedom of the press and assembly,

• mobilisation of citizens and resources for defence purposes.

The logic is compelling: in a moment of national emergency, unity, decisiveness, and command authority are paramount. Nevertheless these measures raise essential constitutional and democratic questions, particularly as the war becomes protracted and Ukraine faces the dual challenge of resisting an external aggressor while preserving internal legitimacy.

Constitutional Democracy on Hold?

Ukraine has not held national elections since the war began. Presidential elections, originally due in March 2024, were suspended under martial law, and parliamentary elections, scheduled for October 2023, have likewise been postponed. Many civic freedoms remain curtailed. Political parties suspected of pro-Russian sympathies have been banned, and military necessity has reshaped media freedoms and public discourse.

In principle, these limitations enjoy broad public support. In wartime, the majority of Ukrainians accept that individual liberties must be subordinated to the collective interest of national survival. Moreover Ukraine’s institutions—particularly its military, local governments, and civil society organisations—have maintained high degrees of popular legitimacy. But the longer martial law persists, the more urgent the questions become: what are the limits of executive power in a wartime democracy? When and how should normal constitutional life be restored?

International Law and Human Rights

Ukraine remains bound by her international human rights obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These treaties allow for limited derogations in times of war or public emergency, but only to the extent strictly required by the situation, and with appropriate notification and oversight. Ukraine has filed formal derogations, as required, but the European Court of Human Rights has increasingly emphasised that even in emergencies, democratic states must maintain core principles of legality, proportionality, and accountability.

There is also a risk that extended emergency powers can set precedents that linger beyond war’s end. In many post-conflict societies, emergency laws have ossified into instruments of repression. Ukraine’s challenge will be to avoid this path: to ensure that martial law remains a temporary legal tool, not a permanent distortion of democratic life.

Civic Trust and Democratic Culture

Ukraine’s strength however lies not only in her formal institutions but in her resilient civic culture. Civil society has flourished despite martial law. Volunteer networks, investigative journalism and grassroots initiatives have continued their work under difficult circumstances. Far from a centralised autocracy, Ukraine under martial law remains a society of remarkable pluralism, creativity and debate.

Moreover President Zelenskyy’s administration has made repeated rhetorical and practical commitments to the restoration of democracy. The suspension of elections has not been exploited to attack political opponents or centralise power further than wartime demands require. Indeed the President’s own approval ratings—although still high—have declined somewhat, a sign that Ukrainians remain engaged in critical democratic scrutiny even under siege.

The Future of Martial Law in Ukraine

The question now becomes one of transition. How will Ukraine restore constitutional normalcy once conditions permit? What reforms might be necessary to ensure that democracy is not only revived but renewed in the post-war order?

Several guiding principles may be drawn:

1. Clear Sunset Provisions

   
   

   Martial law extensions should be explicitly linked to battlefield conditions and reviewed regularly with full parliamentary scrutiny. Once major combat operations recede or stabilise, a roadmap towards normal constitutional procedures—including elections—should be announced publicly.

   
   

2. Institutional Continuity and Oversight

   
   

   The role of the Verkhovna Rada and the Constitutional Court must be preserved and gradually reasserted in overseeing executive actions. Even under martial law, legislative debate and judicial review are crucial signals of democratic vitality.

   
   

3. Protection of Dissent and Minorities

   
   

   Wartime unity must not erode the rights of opposition voices or national minorities. The right to dissent is the hallmark of a true democracy, even in conditions of existential threat.

   
   

4. Strategic Communication and Transparency

   
   

   The government must continue to explain the rationale for emergency measures and provide timelines and benchmarks for democratic restoration. Trust is sustained not by promises, but by openness.

Lessons for Other Democracies

Ukraine’s experience is instructive not only for her own future but for democracies worldwide. In an age of increasing hybrid warfare, disinformation and political extremism, the question of how democracies respond to crises without becoming illiberal is of growing importance. Ukraine shows that it is possible—though difficult—to hold the line between necessary emergency governance and the temptation of authoritarian shortcuts.

Her resilience under fire is testimony not only to military courage but to a society that has internalised the value of freedom. The ultimate test of a democracy is not how it functions in peacetime, but how it survives war. On that measure, Ukraine remains an inspiration.