Peculiarities of public authorities’ functioning in extraordinary regimes: international experience for Ukraine

The problem of constitutional regulation of public authorities’ powers in extraordinary regimes has become particularly relevant for Ukraine, which has faced a full-scale military invasion and is currently under martial law. This situation has revealed not only the state’s capacity for rapid adaptation but also existing gaps and risks within the constitutional and legal mechanism. Given that amending the Constitution of Ukraine during martial law is explicitly prohibited, there is an urgent need for the early study and development of a concept for future constitutional changes based on an analysis of international experience. The aim of the study is to conduct a comparative legal analysis of the constitutional regulation of public authorities’ powers under crisis regimes in France, Germany, and Sweden to develop well-founded proposals for improving the Fundamental Law of Ukraine. To achieve this goal, comparative legal, systemic, historical, and formal legal methods were used. The comparative analysis allowed for the identification of common and distinct features of foreign models, while the historical method provided an understanding of the genesis and reasons for their formation. As a result of the research, key approaches to ensuring the effectiveness of power and preserving democratic principles in crisis conditions were identified. It was established that France grants broad powers to the President accompanied by strong judicial control, whereas Germany strictly limits the executive branch (federal government), prioritizing parliamentary control. The Swedish experience demonstrates that pre-established mechanisms in case of total incapacity of the highest state authorities allow the state to act effectively even under existential threats. The results obtained indicate that the experience of these countries is valuable for Ukraine. Prospects for further research should focus on the possibilities of implementing the developed recommendations and conducting a broad public dialogue to legitimize constitutional reform, which is a necessary step for the post-war reconstruction of the state.