Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has undergone a profound transformation at the intersection of national survival, democratic resilience, and human rights strain. Under President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s wartime leadership, the country has navigated overlapping humanitarian, security, and governance crises while simultaneously pursuing European integration, judicial reform, and anticorruption efforts. This dual reality—of institutional innovation amid the curtailment of civil liberties—defines Ukraine’s unprecedented challenge as a democracy under siege.

Martial law, emergency legislation, and wartime executive centralization have enabled coordinated defense and state continuity but have also restricted elections, increased media regulation, and raised due process concerns. At the same time, civic mobilization, grassroots humanitarianism, and the role of civil society have underscored the strength of Ukraine’s participatory infrastructure.

Drawing on Freedom House data (2022–2024), UN and OHCHR reports, and emerging international scholarship, this article analyzes Ukraine’s evolving human rights landscape in wartime. As legal innovations, digital governance systems, and international criminal scrutiny reshape Ukraine’s postwar horizon, the country stands as a critical empirical case for understanding how democracies endure, adapt, and potentially evolve during prolonged conflict.

Table 1: Human Rights Developments in Ukraine (2022–2024)

Table 2: Impact of Emergency Legal Measures Under Martial Law

The following analysis interprets the developments outlined in the tables, exploring how Ukraine’s legal, institutional, and societal responses to wartime pressures have shaped its human rights landscape and democratic trajectory.

Discussion of Results

• Wartime State-Building Amid Authoritarian Pressure

In response to the ongoing war, the Ukrainian government has reinforced its administrative and military capacities, consolidated executive power, and suspended routine political procedures such as elections. While martial law has been a crucial instrument for national defense, it has also restricted civil liberties and delayed democratic processes. At the same time, Ukraine has continued to pursue key reforms aligned with European Union integration, particularly in the areas of judicial independence and anti-corruption. This complex interplay—between wartime centralization and long-term institutional reform—reveals the inherent tension between emergency governance and democratic accountability.

Historical examples show that democratic regimes often concentrate executive authority during periods of existential threat, such as Britain in World War II or the United States following the 9/11 attacks. Yet Ukraine stands out for attempting to implement liberalizing reforms while actively engaged in large-scale warfare. This simultaneous consolidation and liberalization suggests that hybrid models of governance may develop in conflict-affected democracies, challenging traditional binaries between repression and resilience.

• Institutional Consolidation and Executive Power

Martial law has allowed the Zelenskyy administration to consolidate the national media landscape under the United News platform and postpone electoral processes beyond constitutional timelines. While these measures have generally received broad public support, they have also raised alarms about the potential erosion of democratic norms. The increased use of presidential decrees—particularly to regulate media narratives and dissolve political parties labeled as pro-Russian—illustrates the degree of executive centralization that often accompanies governance during wartime. Such actions, though framed as necessary for national security, continue to fuel debate over the limits of democratic flexibility under emergency conditions.

• Information Control and Media Repression

Ukraine’s media environment, while significantly freer than that of neighboring authoritarian states, has undergone heightened regulation under martial law. Emergency legislation now permits authorities to suspend unregistered media outlets without court orders, and critical reporting on military affairs risks legal repercussions. These developments have sparked concern about narrowing space for public discourse.

As noted in the judiciary section, the enforcement of vaguely defined collaboration laws has shaped more than just legal proceedings; it has also influenced the boundaries of permissible speech. Media professionals report growing uncertainty about what constitutes lawful reporting, leading to self-censorship and hesitancy in investigative journalism. While independent voices continue to operate and internet access remains largely intact, civil society watchdogs warn that temporary wartime controls—if left unchecked—could become permanent features of Ukraine’s information architecture.

At the same time, the conflict has spurred rapid development in digital governance, including biometric ID systems and e-platforms for displacement tracking and healthcare. While efficient for wartime management, these technologies raise questions about surveillance, privacy, and oversight. The challenge for Ukraine will be to ensure that digital infrastructure developed under emergency conditions remains subject to democratic constraints.

• Judiciary: Between Reform and Retrenchment

The use of broadly framed collaboration laws by Ukraine’s judiciary reflects a wider challenge posed by emergency legal regimes: the risk of imprecise statutes enabling discretionary enforcement. These laws have criminalized a wide range of wartime behaviors, including working in occupied territories or expressing views deemed unpatriotic. This legal vagueness threatens due process and creates room for politicized interpretation—undermining both judicial impartiality and long-term rule-of-law standards.

Despite these concerns, Ukraine has made notable judicial advances. The re-establishment of core institutions in 2023 and the introduction of merit-based appointments to the Constitutional Court have drawn praise from the European Union. These reforms signal an attempt to safeguard judicial independence even as the war imposes exceptional legal demands. Still, the judiciary’s use of collaboration laws has implications that extend beyond the courtroom—affecting civil society, media, and broader civic space in ways that warrant scrutiny moving forward.

• Humanitarian Crisis and Forced Displacement

Recent displacement data reveals a deeply uneven landscape, where rural communities and economically marginalized populations have borne the brunt of infrastructure collapse and limited access to humanitarian assistance. The war’s disruption has amplified existing inequalities, particularly in areas underserved by national and international aid networks. Gender-based vulnerabilities have further exacerbated the crisis, with displaced women facing elevated risks of trafficking, domestic violence, and exploitation. These intersecting challenges underscore the urgent need for a multidimensional humanitarian strategy grounded in equity, inclusion, and localized resilience—principles echoed in the UNHCR’s emerging resilience-based frameworks.

Since 2022, more than 10 million Ukrainians have been forcibly uprooted, either internally or across borders. Deliberate Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure have left entire regions without heat, electricity, or access to safe shelter, aggravating the humanitarian emergency. Compounding these conditions are Ukrainian mobilization laws, which prohibit most men aged 18 to 60 from leaving the country—deepening family separation, straining internal support systems, and reinforcing psychological stress among displaced households. Although the government has implemented digital aid platforms and established relocation hubs, these efforts have only partially alleviated the complex, multilayered nature of wartime displacement.

• Religious and Ethnic Repression in Occupied Territories

 Russia has implemented a campaign of cultural suppression and political screening in the Ukrainian territories it occupies. Various reports highlight the deliberate removal of Ukrainian language, historical narratives, and religious imagery as part of a broader effort to erase national identity. Particularly concerning are the documented cases of child abductions and ideological reprogramming, including the relocation and adoption of Ukrainian children into Russian families—actions that may be classified as genocide under international legal standards. In response, Ukrainian lawmakers have considered restricting or banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church associated with the Moscow Patriarchate, a move that has sparked significant debate over the protection of religious freedom during wartime.

• Anti-Corruption and European Integration Efforts

Ukraine’s ongoing anti-corruption efforts—intensified through the momentum of the EU accession process—reflect patterns of institutional path dependency. Pre-invasion reforms created a structural baseline that has enabled wartime transparency measures to take root more effectively, illustrating how gradual institution-building, even if previously inconsistent, can generate cumulative progress. This aligns with broader theoretical frameworks on institutional learning under duress, where crises act as inflection points that accelerate long-delayed reforms shaped by earlier policy legacies.

Despite the disruption of war, Ukraine has achieved notable progress in addressing corruption. Prominent cases, including the arrest of the head of the Supreme Court, have signaled a renewed commitment to high-level accountability. Legislative steps to enhance fiscal oversight have also been met with international approval. The initiation of EU accession negotiations in late 2023 has further embedded anti-corruption norms within Ukraine’s evolving legal and political frameworks. These developments demonstrate that even under conditions of existential threat, democratic institutions are capable of adaptation and reform.

• Gender, Labor, and Social Rights: Partial Gains

The ratification of the Istanbul Convention in 2022 represented a significant milestone in advancing gender equality in Ukraine. However, implementation has been inconsistent, with gaps in enforcement and access to support services. Meanwhile, legal recognition for same-sex couples remains absent, despite growing advocacy from LGBTQ+ groups, including those directly impacted by the war. In the labor sphere, the adoption of emergency legislation in 2022 led to a rollback of protections for employees at smaller enterprises, weakening collective bargaining rights and job security. These developments reflect a broader pattern in which social rights and equity protections are deprioritized during wartime, often framed as secondary to national security imperatives.

• Civil Society: A Beacon of Resilience

Civil society has played a pivotal role in upholding democratic values and protecting human rights throughout Ukraine’s ongoing war. Volunteers, non-governmental organizations, and local grassroots initiatives have mobilized rapidly to deliver humanitarian aid, combat disinformation, and advocate for reforms. Their presence has offered a vital check on executive power and helped sustain public trust during institutional strain.

However, martial law has intensified state oversight, particularly targeting NGOs with foreign funding or perceived political affiliations. As explored in the judiciary section, such scrutiny is often legitimized through expansive legal instruments like the collaboration laws, which risk conflating civic activism with national security threats. This legal ambiguity has left many civil society actors exposed to arbitrary enforcement and reputational risk.

Despite these pressures, Ukrainian civil society has demonstrated extraordinary resilience. Its continued engagement reflects deep-rooted societal commitments to transparency, inclusion, and democratic accountability. In many respects, civil society remains one of the strongest counterbalances to wartime centralization, laying the groundwork for long-term democratic recovery.

Conclusion

Between 2022 and 2024, Ukraine’s human rights landscape has reflected the severe strain that war places on democratic institutions. Martial law and Russian aggression have curtailed civil liberties, yet Ukraine has demonstrated resilience through judicial reforms, anti-corruption initiatives, and an active civil society—signaling institutional vitality under duress.

Still, risks remain. Expanding executive authority, restricted media space, and vague collaboration laws could undermine democratic integrity over time. The ongoing humanitarian crisis and blurred lines between emergency governance and lasting centralization highlight Ukraine’s greatest challenge: resisting external authoritarianism without replicating its features domestically.

A successful democratic transition will depend on postwar reforms that restore pluralism, transparency, and rule of law —supported by sustained international engagement. Ukraine’s experience invites a rethinking of democracy under siege, emphasizing flexibility, civic resilience, and legal innovation.

As Ukraine confronts transitional justice, its approach to prosecuting collaborators, addressing war crimes, and reintegrating occupied regions will shape its postwar identity. Prioritizing reconciliation over retribution will be critical to preventing exclusionary cycles. In this sense, Ukraine stands as a key case for understanding how democracies can adapt—and potentially evolve—amid existential threat.