The Right to Remain: War, Property, and Justice in Liberated Territories

When Ukrainian forces retake territory from Russian occupation, they do more than redraw a map. They recover human lives, burned homes, lost memories, and civic institutions dismantled or corrupted by a foreign regime. But alongside the raising of the blue-and-yellow flag comes a quieter and thornier challenge: who now owns what?

From the southern fields of Kherson to the shelled outskirts of Bakhmut, property rights in liberated territories have become an invisible frontline in Ukraine’s legal and moral war. Thousands of homes have been destroyed, looted, confiscated, or simply occupied by strangers—Russians, collaborators, or displaced civilians. The institutions of justice—courts, registries, law enforcement—are often gutted or untrusted.

In such a setting, the question of who has the right to remain, to return, or to rebuild becomes central to Ukraine’s post-war sovereignty. This essay explores the legal, social, and ethical dimensions of property restitution and residency rights in liberated Ukrainian territories—and what justice should look like when the dust of war settles.

The Chaos of Occupation

During Russian occupation, particularly in Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions, property rights have and continue to be routinely violated through a variety of mechanisms:

• Confiscation by decree: Occupation authorities issued legal fictions declaring absentee owners as “abandoning” their homes, and reassigned these to collaborators, Russian military personnel, or local administrators.

  
  

• Forced displacement: Ukrainian civilians fleeing violence often left behind homes, businesses, and farms with no realistic prospect of safeguarding deeds or documentation.

  
  

• Document falsification: The Russian Federation issued new titles, cadastral records, and passports that held no legitimacy in Ukrainian law but were enforced de facto.

  
  

• Looting and destruction: Property was not merely misappropriated, but gutted—plumbing ripped out, livestock slaughtered, machinery dismantled and transported eastward.

  
  

• Ethnic resettlement: In some areas, notably Crimea and parts of Luhansk Oblast, Russians were deliberately resettled to “replace” Ukrainian populations, in violation of international law.

Upon liberation, Ukraine confronts not merely physical ruins but legal anarchy. Titles no longer match reality. Neighbours accuse one another of collaboration or trespass. Entire apartment blocks lie empty because of landmine risk or collapsed water infrastructure. Even where ownership is clear, the means to rebuild remain absent.

Legal Foundations: What the Law Says

Ukrainian law recognises the inviolability of private property, and Ukraine is a party to international instruments that protect property rights in conflict zones, including:

• The Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibiting the confiscation of private property by occupying powers.

  
  

• The European Convention on Human Rights (Article 1, Protocol 1), safeguarding the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

Domestically, Ukraine maintains a centralised State Register of Real Property Rights, and cadastral maps allow in principle the reconstruction of ownership records.

In practice, however, several obstacles complicate post-liberation restitution:

1. Destroyed documentation: Local land and housing records may have been burned, stolen, or digitised under Russian systems that Ukraine deems illegal.

   
   

2. Competing claims: Property may have been “sold” under duress or falsified contracts, especially to Russian soldiers or occupation officials.

   
   

3. Squatting by displaced persons: Ukrainians displaced from elsewhere sometimes occupy vacant homes, creating humanitarian dilemmas.

   
   

4. Loss of heirs: Entire families may have perished or emigrated, with no surviving legal heirs to claim their property.

   
   

5. Corruption risks: Local officials in liberated areas sometimes exploit legal chaos for personal gain, complicating claims.

   
   

The Human Question: The Right to Remain

Justice cannot be reduced to a spreadsheet of land parcels. Property disputes are deeply personal. For many Ukrainians, their home is the only proof they have of existence. It is tied to identity, memory, survival.

At the core of post-liberation property law is the right to remain: the right of displaced people to return to their homes without fear of eviction, prosecution, or second displacement.

Ukraine’s legal framework must uphold this principle without vengeance, but also without naivety. The challenge is threefold:

• Returnees vs. New Occupants: If a family returns to find another family living in their flat, the state must adjudicate fairly, balancing ownership with humanitarian needs.

  
  

• Collaborators’ Property: If homes were given to collaborators or Russian servicemen, can the property be reclaimed without collective punishment? What threshold of proof is needed?

  
  

• Destruction and Compensation: If a home no longer exists, what is the returnee entitled to? Money? Land? A place in a public housing queue?

Justice, in this context, is not merely about legal clarity but about moral vision. Ukraine must rebuild not just structures, but fairness.

Mechanisms for Resolution

To address these issues, Ukraine has begun developing a system of post-liberation property claims, although progress varies. The following mechanisms are emerging or proposed:

1. Property Claims Tribunals: Specialised administrative courts in de-occupied regions to process property disputes quickly and transparently.

   
   

2. Digital Archives and Restitution Portals: Efforts are underway to digitise land registries and allow returnees to file claims remotely. The Diia (national Ukrainian digital identity) platform may play a key role.

   
   

3. Restitution Vouchers: Where restoration is impossible, financial vouchers or public housing allocations may be provided as compensation.

   
   

4. Special Legislation for Occupied Territories: A “Law on De-occupation and Reintegration” may codify specific rules for handling title, eviction, and dispute resolution.

   
   

5. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions: Some legal scholars argue that property claims should be processed alongside confessions of collaboration or evidence of coercion, to prevent cycles of revenge.

International Comparisons

Other post-conflict societies offer examples—and warnings:

• Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995–2000): The Property Law Implementation Plan (PLIP) oversaw the return of 200,000 homes, though it required international enforcement and took years.

  
  

• Iraq post-2003: Confiscated and looted properties created cascading claims, most of which remain unresolved due to institutional collapse.

  
  

• Cyprus: Greek Cypriots displaced from the north in 1974 still fight over properties occupied by Turkish settlers, nearly 50 years on.

Ukraine must learn from these precedents to avoid frozen injustice. Swift, fair, and well-resourced adjudication is key.

Restitution as Sovereignty

Reclaiming stolen land is not enough. Ukraine must also reclaim the right to justice in her liberated territories. That means recognising that property law is not abstract—it is personal, political, and national.

A just system must allow Ukrainians to return not only to a place, but to a life. It must punish looters and forgers, yes, but also forgive where appropriate. It must compensate fairly. And it must be built to outlast the war.

In the long peace to come, the strength of Ukraine’s sovereignty will be measured not only by how she defends her borders, but by how she restores the dignity of her citizens—one home, one field, one disputed apartment at a time.