The administrative and legal status of military administrations in Ukraine depending on the order of their creation

The article is dedicated to the study of the system of public administration under martial law and the administrative and legal nature of military administrations. The author notes that the military administrations are a new and less studied institution of public administration for the modern stage of state formation. The author aims to research the priority directions for improving the public administration system under martial law, outline the strategic orientations of the state’s development and the optimal institutional model of public administration under martial law. It has been found that, depending on territorial competence, subordination, grounds and order of formation and termination of activities, as well as the order of recruitment, military administrations are divided into: 1) regional military administrations; 2) district military administrations; 3) military administrations of settlements. At the same time, the powers of regional and district military administrations are completely identical, and therefore, the author believes that there is no reason to distinguish them into separate levels for the purposes of this study. Regional and district military administrations are one type of administration, as opposed to military administrations of settlements. It has been proved that the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” does not contain an exhaustive list of grounds for terminating the powers of local self-government bodies of settlements and, accordingly, legal grounds for the formation of military administrations of settlements. The author proves that the military administration in the city of Kyiv could be formed only as a military administration of the settlement, that is, in the event of failure by the Kyiv City Council and/or the executive body of the Kyiv City Council to exercise the powers assigned to them. Considering that the Kyiv City Council continues to exercise, and the executive body of the Kyiv City Council exercised its powers before receiving the status of the Kyiv City Military Administration, the formation of the Kyiv City Military Administration seems legally problematic. It has been argued that the legislator has established different approaches to determining the fate of regional, district local state administrations and military-civilian administrations after the introduction of the legal regime of martial law and the formation of military administrations. This approach of the legislator seems unreasonable and gives rise to a number of problems.