Volume 13 - Issue 75
/ March 2024
197
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.75.03.17
How to Cite:
Zakharchuk, A., Kravchenko, A., Bondarenko, N., Kulikov, O., & Koretskyi, S. (2024). State and legal mechanisms in the
formation of the ethnic identity of ukrainians (17th to Early 20th Century). Amazonia Investiga, 13(75), 197-210.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.75.03.17
State and legal mechanisms in the formation of the ethnic identity of
ukrainians (17th to Early 20th Century)
Державно-Правові Механізми у Формуванні Етнічної Ідентичності Українців
(XVII–поч. XX ст.)
Received: January 4, 2024 Accepted: February 27, 2024
Written by:
Andriy Zakharchuk1
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8224-9210
Alla Kravchenko2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8429-2183
Nataliia Bondarenko3
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9370-301X
Oleksii Kulikov4
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5400-4133
Serhii Koretskyi5
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6465-7712
Abstract
Unlike Eastern Ukraine, the territorial belonging
of Western Ukrainian lands was determined by
contractual agreements between European states.
Reforms in Austria, and later in Austria-
Hungary, as opposed to Russia, were based on
the principles of Enlightenment ideology and
values such as freedom, human rights,
constitutionalism, and parliamentarism. In the
medium-term perspective, this led to the Western
Ukrainian community developing a sense of
national consciousness, political organization,
and the values of European civilization by the
end of the 19th century. In this article, based on
a comparative analysis of the historical
experience of the Ukrainian community within
two empires – the Russian and the Austro-
Hungarian – the evolution of the process of
1
Doctor of Law, Professor, Department of Legal Support of Business Security, Faculty of International Trade and Law, State
University of Trade and Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: C-4321-2019
2
Doctor of Philosophy, Head of the Department of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, Faculty of International Trade and
Law, State University of Trade and Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: N-2338-2016
3
PhD in Law, Associate Professor, Faculty of International Trade and Law, State University of Trade and Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine.
WoS Researcher ID: GQP-5840-2022
4
PhD in Law, Associate Professor, Faculty of International Trade and Law, Department of Legal Support of Business Security, State
University of Trade and Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: JUU-5434-2023
5
Candidate of Law, Associate Professor of the Department of Law, Kyiv Cooperative Institute of Business and Law College of
Economics and Law, Kyiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: JTV-7086-2023
198
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
national identity is examined. The study was
conducted using general methods of scientific
knowledge, in particular, analysis and synthesis,
induction and deduction, abstraction,
specification, and formalization. During the
study, the author analyzed the peculiarities of the
state and legal mechanisms for forming the
ethnic identity of Ukrainians in the seventeenth
and early twentieth centuries. The prerequisites
of Ukrainians’ ethnic self-identification are
considered. The author analyses the historical
and cultural foundations of establishing the
Ukrainian nation with the modern state-building
process.
Keywords: identity, ethnicity, societal ideal,
state-building, national consciousness.
Introduction
The historical development of the Ukrainian
lands that became part of the Russian Empire is
characterized by their formation under the
influence of diverse factors. During the period of
the Liberation Struggle, this occurred on the
basis of agreements. Colonization took place
with migrants from Ukraine settling in the border
territories of the Muscovite Tsardom.
Furthermore, the expansion of the South
Ukrainian lands resulted from conflicts with the
Crimean Khanate. Throughout these processes,
the government attempted to limit or prevent the
realization of the Ukrainian population’s own
identity.
The beginning of the 20th century is marked by
the struggle of the Ukrainian community for
sovereignty and state independence. Such state-
building experience holds exceptional
significance for reevaluating and assessing the
processes of state construction in the last 30
years. It was also characterized by the
development of new theoretical and legal
principles related to the construction of a modern
Ukrainian state.
However, a necessary precondition for Ukraine’s
successful realization of its potential is the
widespread integration into the global and
primarily European community. This would
necessitate its active cooperation with various
international organizations in the matter of
reforming the national legal system.
In this regard, it is worth noting that the
contradictions related to the formation of the
state and societal ideal were influenced by the
fact that Ukrainian lands, divided between two
states (the Russian Empire and Austria-
Hungary), oriented themselves towards two
different social and state-legal mechanisms, each
with its own content.
The relevance of the topic is underscored by the
fact that, at the beginning of the 20th century,
Ukrainians were confronted with the necessity of
fighting for the sovereignty of their own state –
the Ukrainian People’s Republic. From the
aforementioned, the research objective is
formulated, which consists of analyzing the
process of the formation of national identity. The
formulated objective has also determined the
research subject, namely, the state-legal and self-
governing institutions of those societies that
included Ukrainian lands. The formulated
research objective and subject have defined the
temporal framework of the study - from the 17th
century, a period of gradual limitation and
elimination of Ukrainian statehood by Russia, to
the annexation of Ukrainian lands by Austria in
the late 19th century, coinciding with the
implementation of bourgeois reforms in these
states.
Therefore, the objective of this article is to clarify
how, in the conditions of territorial dispersion
and belonging to different state organisms, on the
one hand, the loss of statehood attributes, and on
the other hand, the process of consolidating the
Ukrainian society took place.
The purpose of the study is to analyze the socio-
political and state-legal factors that influenced
the formation of the worldview of Ukrainian
society.
Zakharchuk, A., Kravchenko, A., Bondarenko, N., Kulikov, O., Koretskyi, S. / Volume 13 - Issue 75: 197-210 / March, 2024
Volume 13 - Issue 75
/ March 2024
199
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Literature review
The issue of the peculiarities of the state and legal
mechanisms of forming the ethnic identity of
Ukrainians in the seventeenth-early twentieth
centuries within the general process of ethno- and
nation-building forms a scientific circle of
interest for several contemporary scholars.
Numerous publications on the subject have been
made in scientific journals.
The theoretical aspects of the consolidation of the
Ukrainian nation in different political, socio-
economic and internal cultural conditions are
reflected in the studies of several contemporary
scholars (Salnikova et al., 2022; Terliuk, 2021).
Among the array of research results, it is worth
highlighting the work (Boyko, 2022), which
fundamentally examines the influence of
neighboring states on the formation and
development of the Ukrainian legal tradition.
At the same time, some scholars (Andrusiak,
2008) draw attention to the problem of
identifying the factors influencing the formation
of the Ukrainian population’s legal
consciousness in the regional context. Several
authors (Demyanko, 2001; Ramji-Nogales,
2022) study the mental characteristics of
Ukrainians’ political consciousness.
The near complete cessation (or biased approach
based on politicized or ideologized conceptual
foundations) of research in Soviet Ukraine on
issues of Ukrainian identity led to the absence of
fundamental works on the mentioned topic.
However, it has been proven that the tradition of
Ukrainian national self-awareness, through the
prism of state-legal development, dates back to
ancient times (Dontsov, 1951).
Despite certain divergences associated with the
evolution process of any society, it has been
established that each society goes through three
stages: in the first stage, a small group of scholars
collects historical documents and folklore,
fearing that the uniqueness of the nation will be
eradicated under the pressure of imperial culture;
in the second cultural stage, an unexpected
“resurgence” of the nation’s language occurs,
with its use in science and education; and in the
third political stage, the development of
nationally-oriented programs takes place,
declaring the aspiration for self-governance. This
general model aligns with the evolution of
Ukrainian national consciousness (Subtelny,
1998).
As a result, we find the outcomes of prolonged
theoretical work in the field of state and law,
historical-ethnographic and folklore heritage,
historical works, literary studies in Galicia,
works in the field of economics and social
studies. However, in the Soviet socio-political
literature of Ukraine, this thematic content did
not find continuation. Essentially, in the 1930s,
at the turn of two centuries, the practice of a
synthetic approach to researching issues of
Ukrainian national consciousness, initiated in
social studies, was disrupted.
Ukrainian researchers of the mid-19th to early
20th century, a time when attention to national
history was growing, often equated the term
“people” with another term – “nation”.
Discussions related to clarifying the meanings of
the terms “nation” and “society” sometimes point
to the multiplicity of characteristics, or they limit
themselves to certain attributes that do not cover
the full spectrum.
In Soviet academia, events of the investigated
period were viewed in the context of preparing
and conducting the socialist revolution.
Therefore, anything that did not fit into the
concept of Soviet state-building was perceived as
reactionary, not aligned with social progress.
Specifically, national-state building, which
contradicted Bolshevik strategy based on class
struggle theory, was classified as bourgeois-
nationalist and anti-people.
Within the context of these approaches, a system-
critical approach to scientific research gains
significant importance.
Methodology
The manuscript’s theoretical and methodological
foundation consists of a combination of
philosophical, general, and specific scientific
research methods. The fundamental principles of
scientific inquiry include objectivity,
comprehensiveness, methodological pluralism, a
concrete-historical approach, the unity of theory
and practice, and the synergy of knowledge. The
underlying methodological approach is the
dialectical method, which allows for the
examination of the proposed topic in its
development, employing concepts such as
“worldview,” “contradictions,” “culture,”
“transformation,” “freedom,” and more. The
dialectical combination of retrospective and
logical methods enables the tracing of the
specifics of the historical development of states
that included Ukrainian lands. By employing the
200
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
category of “planetary-historical,” the essence of
events within local-historical, socio-legal
formations is analyzed.
Results and discussion
The formation of ethnic identity, as evidenced by
global experience, becomes most active under
the influence of objective and subjective factors
related to the state-building process.
Additionally, in the context of losing statehood,
there arises a need both for analyzing the reasons
behind such relations and the conditions that
impact both the process of ethnic identity and the
content of state doctrine.
It has been established that the territory of
Ukraine evolved from three parts: the Dnieper
region and Western Ukraine, as two ethnographic
centers of Ukrainian identity, and a third area - a
wide zone of later colonization encompassing the
east and south of Ukraine. In Eastern Ukraine, as
a specific region, we can distinguish the Sloboda
Ukraine. The mass resettlement movement
gained widespread popularity in these territories
during the Liberation Struggle under the
leadership of Bohdan Khmelnytsky. The
Moscow government allocated significant
territories where settlers established their own
orders and structures.
With its administrative-territorial structure and
state-legal status, the Sloboda Ukraine region
stood out due to its distinctiveness. Here, five
Sloboda Cossack regiments were formed, which
constituted both military and administrative-
territorial units. The regiments were led by
colonels and regimental elders. The authority of
the colonel was often passed down through
inheritance within representatives of the same
lineage (Panashenko, 1991: 283-314).
The population was accustomed to having “a
representative of the same lineage at its head”
(Doroshenko, 1992). However, despite granting
the Cossacks full internal autonomy within the
regimental organization, the Moscow
government did not consolidate the Sloboda
regiments under the authority of a single
individual, as was the case in Hetmanate. In
matters of national significance, the colonels
were subordinate to the voivode, who was
located in Belgorod. These actions were taken to
prevent the emergence of a distinct territorial
unity among the Cossacks.
Gradually, a policy of limiting local self-
governance was implemented. Judicial and
criminal cases in Slobozhanshchyna were
removed from the jurisdiction of the colonels and
transferred to the Belgorod Provincial
Chancellery. The Cossacks retained the right to
appeal the decisions of the regimental elders to
the Belgorod voivode, with the actions of the
latter subject to the Kursk Supreme Court. From
that point on, the appointment and approval of
colonels and sotniks of the Sloboda Cossack
regiments were carried out by government
officials appointed by the tsar. In Sumy, a
governing body called the “Chancellery of the
Commission for Establishing Sloboda
Regiments” was established, led by Prince
Shakhovskiy and two staff officers. The
chancellery’s task was to reorganize the
regimental structure (Panashenko, 1991:
283-314).
The system of local administration also
underwent changes. The regimental town halls,
which were established concurrently with the
formation of regiments, were renamed as
chancelleries. These chancelleries were granted
the rights and functions of the chancelleries of
Russian provincial governorates. All matters
handled by regimental chancelleries were
resolved based on nationwide laws and imperial
decrees. Legal proceedings within the regiments
followed Russian legislation. (Liberation War
and Reunification of Ukraine with Russia. The
Beginning of Feudalism’s Decline and the
Emergence of Capitalist Relations (Serhiienko et
al., 1979).
From the mid-18th century, there was an
increasing effort by autocracy to standardize the
governance system towards the expansion of
imperial orders. The Sloboda-Ukrainian
Province was abolished, and in its place, the
Kharkiv Vicegerency was established. The
division into provinces was abolished.
At the end of 1796, the Kharkiv Vicegerency was
once again transformed into the Sloboda-
Ukrainian Province. However, this did not
significantly alter the overall governance system.
Thus, by the beginning of the 19th century, all
territorial-administrative distinctions between
Slobozhanshchyna and other parts of the Russian
Empire disappeared. The standardization of
governance forms led to the elimination of the
autonomous system’s specific features.
Ukrainians were deprived of the right to head
local authorities, local self-governing bodies
were abolished, and legal proceedings were
conducted based on imperial laws.
The geographic division at its core is overlaid
with factors and peculiarities of the legal status.
Volume 13 - Issue 75
/ March 2024
201
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Finally, one must also consider the third “line of
division” associated with the confessional factor:
the contradiction between the Orthodox and
Greek-Catholic traditions in Ukrainian
Christianity (Nahorna, 1998)
In the works of scholars from the Ukrainian
diaspora, it is noted that at the beginning of the
First World War, the Ukrainian lands were
distributed by state affiliation as follows:
territories known in Ukrainian geographical
terminology as Right-Bank (in relation to the
Dnipro River) Ukraine (Russian official name
“Southwestern Krai”); Steppe Ukraine (Russian
name “Novorossiya”), and Slobozhanshchyna, as
well as Ukrainian lands in the Don and
Transcaucasus, were part of the Russian Empire.
Galician-Bukovynian territories were within the
framework of the Austrian state organism.
Transcarpathian Ukraine (also known as
“Hungarian Ukraine” or “Rus of Hungary”)
belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary
(Yurchenko,1971).
The realization of the unity of the territory,
through the prism of the administrative-territorial
structure, of the central part of Ukrainian lands,
begins in the years of the Mid-17th Century
Liberation War.
After the Pereyaslav Council, the state and legal
status of Ukrainian lands was determined by an
agreement between Bohdan Khmelnytsky and
the Moscow Tsar, known as the “Articles of
Bohdan Khmelnytsky” or “Articles of the
Zaporizhian Host.” Ukraine retained features of
statehood such as autonomous self-governance
led by a hetman, territorial-administrative and
judicial bodies, and the right to diplomatic
relations with other countries (except Poland and
Turkey).
Subsequently, the state and legal status of
Ukraine, through the actions of certain leadership
groups, was characterized by limitations on
rights and privileges. The so-called ‘Moscow
Articles’ strengthened the positions of the Tsarist
regime in Ukraine (taxation of the population,
maintenance of Russian troops at the expense of
the Ukrainian peasantry and bourgeoisie, etc.)
(Honcharenko, 1997a).
The terms of the agreement between the Tsarist
government and Hetman Demyan Mnogohrishny
were supplemented with new provisions, which
were categorically formulated to prohibit the
hetman and his government from having
diplomatic relations with other countries, reduce
the size of the Cossack army to 30,000, and have
Moscow voivodes with military garrisons in
Ukrainian cities (Honcharenko, 1997b).
It is worth noting that while eliminating the
features of Ukrainian statehood, the Tsarist
government simultaneously tried to expand the
rights and privileges of the Cossack leadership.
The “Kolomatsky Articles” declared privileges
for the Cossack leadership, the inviolability of
property granted by royal decrees, and the
bestowal of noble titles based on merit
(Honcharenko, 1997c). Through such measures,
the government sought to prevent the formation
of independence-seeking tendencies within the
Cossack elite.
By the end of the 17th century and the first half
of the 18th century, Russia underwent a
transition from an estate-representative
monarchy to an absolutist monarchy. The
absolutist monarchical authority aimed to
eliminate the specific features of the
administrative-territorial structure and the state-
legal status possessed by the peripheral regions
of the empire, such as the Don, Yaik, as well as
the Baltic States and Ukraine. For this purpose,
there were restrictions and the elimination of any
signs of autonomous governance.
Autocracy unified the governance system
towards the expansion of the overall imperial
state mechanism. In Ukraine, the regimental
administrative-territorial division was abolished,
and the “Regulation for the Governance of
Governorates” that applied to all of Russia came
into effect. A nationwide system of
administrative-territorial rule was introduced,
involving the division into viceroys, led by
viceroys (generals-governors), responsible for
the “strict and complete collection from all his
subordinates.” The position of the general-
governor in Right-Bank Ukraine held particular
importance, exerting influence over local
authorities. As a result, Russian autocracy not
only managed to eliminate all remnants of
Ukraine’s autonomy but also established a rigid
regime of governance over the territory, which,
effectively, became an integral part of the
empire. Consequently, Ukrainian society needed
time to formulate the content of the doctrine of
national consciousness and directions for socio-
political development.
During the gradual expansion of the Russian
Empire towards the Black Sea, specific features
of the state-territorial structure of these lands
were being formed. It is worth noting that the
202
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
decisive role in colonizing the southern
territories belonged to settlers from Left-Bank
and Right-Bank Ukraine.
A significant reorganization of the
administrative-territorial structure of the
southern lands began in 1764. By the imperial
decree, New Serbia and the Novoslobodsk
Cossack Regiment were transformed into the
Novorossiysk Governorate. The governance of
the governorate was carried out by two
departments - military and civilian. Soon, the
Ukrainian Line was incorporated into the
Novorossiysk Governorate, and the cities of
Kremenchuk and Vlasivka, as well as 13
hundreds of the Poltava Regiment, were
annexed.
The administrative-territorial structure of the
Novorossiysk Governorate was being shaped by
the imperial government in line with the overall
state-wide transformations.
Subsequently, with the annexation of Crimea,
shifts occurred in the state-territorial structure of
the region. The lands of the former Crimean
Khanate saw the creation of the Taurida
Province. Seeking to prevent the restoration of
statehood for the peoples of Crimea, the
government established six districts, the
administration of which included Crimean feudal
lords who received corresponding ranks and
were equated in their rights to the Russian
nobility (Panashenko, 1991: 283-314).
Formation of the governance mechanism in the
southern lands, in the context of the overall
imperial policy, engendered within the Ukrainian
community, which actively participated in the
colonization of these territories, a realization of a
not-so-temporary unity, not only based on
territorial commonality but also on shared
societal ideals.
With the aim of standardizing the governance
system and strengthening autocratic-police
power locally, in the Ukrainian lands by the late
18th century, a pan-Russian administrative
structure was extended. The territory of Ukraine
was divided into governorates and counties.
The inclusion of Ukrainian territories into the
Russian realm occurred against the backdrop of
complex political and legal relations in Eastern
Europe. On the other hand, the state-legal
tradition of Russian autocracy was based on the
idea of eliminating elements of Ukrainian
statehood. Concurrently, the government
established principles of territorial organization
that were meant to hinder the revival of
Ukrainian national consciousness.
It is not coincidental that Russian legislation
emphasizes the pivotal role of the governor, a key
figure in the middle tier of the bureaucratic state
apparatus. The governor was responsible for
implementing governmental policies. Notably, in
pan-Russian legislative acts, there were attempts
to distinguish the functions of civilian and
military governors, delineating their
responsibilities from those of vice-governors,
gubernatorial administration, prosecutor,
treasury and judicial chambers, and the head of
the nobility. At the same time, the recurrent
reference to the issue of “bounds of authority”
underscores the absence of clearly defined
spheres and limits of their competence in
practical life. The question of the governor’s
position within the state administrative apparatus
was also raised. The establishment of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs sought to subordinate
the governor to its structure, whereas according
to previous laws, the governor was answerable
solely to the emperor. Conversely, the governor
received dozens of directives regarding his
responsibility for censorship, fire safety in
factories and plants, oversight of nobility
elections, activities of other “presence” entities,
conscription, passport regulations, and more
(Shandra, 1998).
As a result of the uprising on the territory of
Poland, the imperial government established the
Kyiv General-Governorship, which included the
Kyiv, Volyn, and Podillya governorates.
Right after suppressing the uprising, the Russian
government initiated an intensified offensive
against all remaining vestiges of administrative-
territorial autonomy in Right-Bank Ukraine. In
doing so, it aimed to eradicate the consequences
of the national liberation movements of the
Polish and Ukrainian peoples. On October 30,
1831, a law came into effect aimed at eliminating
the specific features of the administrative
structure of the Western provinces and
establishing pan-imperial regulations. According
to the conclusion of the State Council, approved
by the emperor, the Russian language was
introduced not only into the judicial system of the
Kyiv governorate but also in the Podillya and
Volyn governorates. By a specific, Senate-
announced decree, the governor-general was
appointed responsible for the resettlement of the
former nobility to the Caucasus (Shandra, 1998).
The abolition of serfdom brought about a certain
transformation of social relations. In rural areas,
Volume 13 - Issue 75
/ March 2024
203
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
local self-governing bodies began to form. As a
result, the resolution of significant matters
related to village life was entrusted to the village
council. For addressing current affairs, the
village council selected a village elder. Several
villages together formed a “volost” with a “volost
elder” at its head.
The 1864 Zemstvo Reform envisaged the
creation of self-governing bodies at the
intermediate level: gubernia zemstvo assemblies
and their executive bodies – gubernia zemstvo
administrations, as well as county zemstvo
assemblies and county zemstvo administrations.
Elections to the zemstvo institutions were based
on property qualification and estate affiliation.
Their authority was centered around addressing
matters of education, healthcare, and road
construction. However, even in this limited form,
zemstvos expressed their opposition to
absolutism. Fearing that zemstvos might evolve
into national-political centers, the imperial
government introduced them in Left-Bank
Ukraine and, only in 1911, in Right-Bank
Ukraine (Dnistrovsky, 1992).
A more radical reform was the judicial reform,
which provided free access to legal protection for
all residents and ensured the election,
independence, and tenure of judges. The
institution of lay jurors was introduced, district
courts of justice and courts of peace with clearly
defined functions were established. However,
estate courts persisted, which, although dealing
with minor cases, remained vestiges of the old
system.
During the post-reform period, the so-called
“peasant policy” was primarily implemented in
villages and volosts (administrative units).
Despite the social and legal limitations and the
structural imperfections of the self-governing
bodies, the attention of the peasants was directed
towards the volost. After the abolition of serfdom
and the implementation of other reforms in the
19th century, the volost administrations
transformed into a source from which the
Ukrainian rural population drew all the necessary
laws, acts, regulations, instructions,
explanations, and excerpts needed for public and
family life.
However, at the same time, the agricultural
population exhibited apathy towards state affairs,
particularly towards local governance bodies.
Since performing administrative functions was
inadequately compensated, peasants regarded
elective positions as a burdensome obligation.
The separation of rural workers from their own
farms led to tangible losses. The unique peasant
lifestyle that had developed over centuries
fostered distrust of government institutions: the
duties performed by deacons, socy, starostas,
elders, and village heads were often perceived by
peasants as a service that brought no respect or
profit (Prysiashniuk, 1999: 23-32).
The attitude of Ukrainian peasants towards self-
governing bodies had another aspect. Often, rural
and volost officials were chosen from among
“quiet,” weak-spirited villagers who turned a
blind eye to violations of laws, government
decrees, and local authorities’ orders. Village and
volost assemblies were seen by “active”
participants in the communities not primarily as
a form of state and legal life, but as an
opportunity for yet another interaction, a kind of
collective leisure (Prysiashniuk, 1999: 23-32).
The process of involving Ukrainian peasants in
the activities of local governance occurred
sporadically and was not controlled by the state.
The participation of farmers in representative
assemblies, much like in the medieval era,
remained primarily formal. Meanwhile, those in
positions of actual power, often hailing from a
farming background, quickly isolated themselves
and socially distanced from their fellow villagers.
However, while maintaining their agricultural
mentality and worldview, they aimed to derive
benefits from it within the bounds of traditional
ways of life (Prysiashniuk, 1999: 23-32).
In a primitive understanding of the essence and
specificity of state power and their own rights,
Ukrainian peasants behaved passively at
assemblies. Reluctantly attending such
gatherings, except for a few who considered
themselves community leaders, they knew in
advance that no major issues would be resolved
there. During these gatherings, peasants were
mostly present as mere attendees. Often, they had
no opportunity to participate in the discussion of
specific matters. There were instances where
attendees were not even aware of the topics under
consideration.
The average Ukrainian peasant simplistically
accepted, misconstrued, and interpreted rights,
legality, and the communal nature of personal
and societal interests, rendering them incapable
of providing anything constructive in the face of
clannishness and bureaucratic power, including
at the local level. The legal consciousness of
Ukrainian peasants during the post-reform
decades was characterized by the preservation of
204
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
patriarchal norms of customary law: money
borrowed was often given “on trust,” without
formal debt documents, and only 20% of claims
in volost courts were substantiated by
documents.
The development of power relations in Ukraine
was based on ideals reflecting the worldview
(mentality) characteristics of Ukrainian society
and, primarily, the peasantry, which constituted
nearly 9/10 of the population.
In a political and legal understanding, mentality
reflects a certain level of individual social
consciousness, as well as the associated spectrum
of life positions and behavior models that claim
independence from officially defined ideological
orientations and political-legal orientations. It’s a
unique political-psychological thesaurus shared
among members of a socio-political group or
organization, enabling them to perceive and
evaluate the existing political-legal reality, and
act within it according to established societal
norms and behavior patterns while understanding
and perceiving each other adequately
(Demyanko, 2001: 93-100).
The majority of Ukrainian researchers, when
analyzing the Ukrainian character, have
considered the decisive influence of geographical
and geopolitical factors, economic life, and other
factors.
Methodological approaches associated with the
study of issues related to legal culture, especially
the meanings of “law” and “legislation,” can be
found in the work “The Spirit of the Laws” by
Montesquieu. In this work, Montesquieu
attempts to determine the content of laws based
on certain natural factors, primarily geographical
ones. State-legal relations are influenced by
factors such as climate, soil, terrain, customs,
traditions, religious beliefs, population size,
material well-being, and the prevailing “order of
things” as a whole (Tymoshenko, 1998:
767-768). Montesquieu emphasizes that while
certain regularities exist, legislators should also
consider the mental characteristics of a specific
ethnic group.
In addition to this, the influence of the
geopolitical factor should also be considered. In
his interpretation of Ukraine’s position between
the East and the West, Ivan Lysiak-Rudnytsky
under the term “West” understood Europe as a
community of European nations united by
similar characteristics. He emphasized the
Western, European nature of Ukraine while
acknowledging the existence of strong non-
Western elements within the Ukrainian national
identity (Lysiak-Rudnytsky, 1994: 1-9.)
As a result, the geopolitical factor contributed to
certain character traits of Ukrainians, such as an
extraordinary desire for freedom, national
sovereignty, and natural democratic tendencies.
These traits have led to the formation of various
local forms of self-realization at local-societal
and individual levels, including tendencies
towards anarchism. According to Mykola
Kostomarov, who characterized Ukraine as a
social community that from ancient times didn’t
want to recognize “neither king nor lord.”
Dmytro Yavornytsky, a renowned researcher of
Cossack history, described the Zaporozhian
Cossack as a guardian of the state and societal
ideals of the Ukrainian people, a social
phenomenon that acted as a “living herald of
freedom” and a “living protest against violence
and slavery” (Demyanko, 2001: 93-100).
In conclusion, at the beginning of the 20th
century, the idea emerged within the sphere of
Ukraine’s socio-political thought that only the
Ukrainian peasantry could be the creator of the
national-state ideal. This perspective was
motivated by the belief that only the Ukrainian
peasantry, unlike the russified proletariat,
preserved spiritual traditions. The majority of
left-leaning politicians in both parts of Ukraine
adhered to this viewpoint. The relevance of this
issue is driven by distinctive retrospective
parallels that Ukrainian society has experienced
over the last 150-200 years. In a generalized
form, these parallels reflect the following
directions of social transformation: from a police
state to democracy, from a monarchical
(totalitarian) political regime to a liberal (liberal-
democratic) one; from a natural-consumer
(planned-administrative) economic system to a
market-oriented (social-market) one (Boyko,
2022).
For the Ukrainian ethnos, a crucial aspect in the
formation of their mentality was the pronounced
autochthony and the development of a way of life
in accordance with their occupations. Indeed, the
mentality of the Ukrainian peasantry has its roots
in the agrarian culture of our ancestors.
Ukrainians are an autochthonous ethnic group
that has inhabited the same lands for millennia,
and their primary occupation has been
agriculture. The connection between Ukrainians
and the land was strong and multifaceted.
Ukrainian peasants loved the land, treating it as
sacred. Agricultural practices were accompanied
by numerous warnings and rituals, largely tied to
Volume 13 - Issue 75
/ March 2024
205
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
natural cycles and the agricultural calendar
(Apanovych, 2000: 3-5).
The Ukrainian peasant developed and solidified
a sense of being a master, relying on their own
abilities and showing personal initiative. The
environment and work on the land shaped their
understanding of good and evil, as well as their
internal moral principles and norms of behavior.
For the Ukrainian agricultural worker, achieving
a good result in land cultivation was tied to
morality, practical benefit, skillfulness, and
aesthetic satisfaction. However, under one
essential condition: the land on which they
labored, nurtured, and cared for should belong to
them. From ancient times, Ukrainians had a
traditional inclination toward individual land
ownership and private property. According to
divine and human justice, the material wealth
earned through hard work should not be wasted
or appropriated by others. It should belong to the
one who acquired it - the owner, as well as those
for whom they live, work, and save. This
includes those who inherit the owner’s property -
their family, the most crucial unit of human
society, which ensures the connection between
generations and the continuity of the lineage.
This family is the carrier of spiritual values.
However, the individualistic principles within
the family and community relations of Ukrainian
peasants, as a rule, did not hinder the
organization of such important and necessary
collective labor. This is evident, in particular,
through joint field work, communal labor efforts
(“tolokas”), long-distance trade caravans
(“chumaks”), carting, village-based collective
work groups (“artils”), and cooperatives.
Cooperation was almost always voluntary.
In the latter half of the 19th to the early 20th
century, due to the aforementioned traits of their
mentality, Ukrainian peasants could not come to
terms with the notion that industry and trade were
superseding agriculture in the societal economy.
This was coupled with another deeply ingrained
stereotype in their socio-cultural consciousness -
the prioritization of physical labor over
intellectual pursuits. It has been demonstrated
that it is in this context that one must seek one of
the reasons for the peasants’ aversion and
contempt towards the “masters,” a term they
typically applied to landowners, entrepreneurs,
merchants, officials, and the intelligentsia
(Prysiashniuk, 1999: 23-32).
The distinctiveness of Ukrainian peasants,
coupled with socio-legal limitations within
administrative and judicial domains, and the
imperfect state of rural democracy, resulted in
their secondary role within society. One of the
pivotal questions in this posed problem is to what
extent the peasantry was prepared for a “free”
existence (Marandici, 2020). Introduced through
reforms into semi-market relations, the peasantry
had to rapidly adapt to forms of state life
previously unfamiliar to them. The liberalization
of socio-political life in rural areas created
certain opportunities for improving the social
status of farmers through pursuing career
ambitions. However, the reality was that the
majority of legal cases involving landowners and
clergy resulted in unfavorable outcomes for
peasants. Due to their low socio-legal status, lack
of resources, bureaucracy in the judicial system,
and more significantly, the fear harbored by the
farmers who believed that winning a legal case
against the “masters” was a futile endeavor, cases
initiated by peasants were rarely heard.
In our view, the absence of support for reforms
from the Ukrainian peasantry was influenced by
the fact that “property rights and the enforcement
of contracts through legal institutions became the
foundation for economic growth in Great Britain,
the Netherlands, Germany, the USA, and other
countries that protected these rights. For this
reason, liberalism is associated with economic
growth and modernization. Historically, the most
favorable class for liberalism was the class of
owners, not only landowners, but also numerous
business owners and entrepreneurs from the
middle class, whom Karl Marx referred to as the
bourgeoisie” (Fukuyama, 2020).
As a result of the First Partition of Poland in 1772
and the Third Partition of Poland in 1795,
Galicia, and according to the Austro-Turkish
Convention of 1775 concluded in
Constantinople, Bukovina, became part of the
Austrian Empire. Galicia, along with certain
Polish territories, was designated as a separate
region known as the “Kingdom of Galicia and
Lodomeria,” with its center in Lviv. This region
was administratively divided into 19 districts, of
which 12 were situated within the territory of
Eastern Galicia, where the Ukrainian population
resided. In 1786, Bukovina, with its center in
Chernivtsi, was annexed to Galicia as a separate
district.
Emperors Maria Theresa and her son Joseph II
implemented reforms based on the understanding
that the strength of the state depended on the
level of personal freedoms and the spread of
education among the population.
206
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
The state and legal development of Ukrainian
territories were influenced not only by the
constitutional structure of Austria but also by the
impact of Western European Enlightenment
ideology, which encompassed elements of
democracy, humanism, and legality. Despite
substantial resistance from administrative and
territorial authorities, the Polish elite, the state
and legal reforms in Austria nurtured the concept
of personal autonomy across all aspects of life
and unified the Ukrainian community towards a
common national goal (Matskevych, 2007:
134-137).
It is within the circles of Ukrainian scholars that
the notion emerged that the Ukrainian population
of Galicia, in contrast to the Right-Bank Ukraine,
fostered a societal ideal aimed at achieving
Ukrainian statehood. Among the array of factors
that shaped the process of nation-building in
Galicia, researchers emphasize the civilization
affiliation with the Western European realm.
This manifested in legislation and the populace’s
ability to employ the state and legal mechanisms
to address the needs of Ukrainian state
development (Andrusiak, 2008: 13-16).
The pivotal role in the formation of Austria’s
state and legal system was played by the
revolution of 1848-1849. Under the influence of
these revolutionary events, the country’s state
and legal development evolved towards
constitutionalism. According to the provisions of
the so-called “opened” (bestowed by the
emperor) Constitution, the authority of the
emperor was partially curtailed, and limited
democratic freedoms were proclaimed
(Salnikova et al., 2022). From the perspective of
the Ukrainian community’s priorities, the
reforms carried an ambivalent character. The
separation of Bukovina from Galicia did not
facilitate the process of Ukrainian consolidation.
Concurrently, Bukovina was granted the status of
a separate autonomous region with the title of
“duchy.” The rights of the newly established
duchy were defined by the imperial patent
(decree) of September 29, 1850, which
encompassed the Constitution of the region and
the Electoral Law for local representative
authorities. Of particular note is the third
paragraph of the Constitution, which asserts that
all nations residing within the region are equal,
and each nation possesses an inalienable right to
safeguard and develop its nationality and
language (Dobrzhanskyi, 1999).
By gaining the right to participate in
representative governmental bodies, Ukrainian
deputies not only acquired experience in
statecraft but also utilized the parliamentary
platform to address tasks of national and state
development. This was supported by specific
legal provisions. The Constitution stipulated that
the Duchy of Bukovina was an integral part of
the empire, and its connection with other lands
was established based on the Constitution
through representation in the Reichsrat
(parliament). From the perspective of the state
and legal status of the region, a positive aspect
was the establishment of governing bodies. The
convening of the regional sejm, endowed with
certain legislative powers, and the organization
of the regional department as a permanent
executive structure were foreseen (Usenko &
Kirsenko, 2008).
Additionally, constitutional law in Galicia, while
granting certain privileges to large landowners,
restricted the possibility of Ukrainian
representatives accessing legislative bodies and
enabled the bureaucratic apparatus to exert a
wide influence over all spheres of life within the
Ukrainian community of Galicia (Matsekevych,
1999: 91-92).
An important step in terms of further
safeguarding Ukrainian national priorities was
the issuance by Emperor Franz Joseph of the
“Regional Statute and Seim Electoral Ordinance
for the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria with
the Grand Duchy of Krakow,” which, with minor
modifications, remained in effect until the First
World War.
According to the provisions of the “Statute,” the
supreme authority was declared to be the regional
seim, with the executive branch being the
regional division. The seim was elected for a
term of 6 years. It possessed the right to establish
regional laws, particularly in matters of economy
and finance, public affairs, church issues,
education, and more (Terliuk, 2021). The
competencies of the regional seim extended to
matters concerning the protection of forests and
fields, water usage, establishment of public
management bodies, regional transportation
routes, establishment of public and professional
schools, decisions about the language of
instruction in educational institutions, formation
of local budget revenues and expenditures, and
so forth.
Within the framework of the existing legislation,
the seim could discuss nationwide laws and
communicate with central government
authorities, expressing its opinions on all matters
brought before it by the government. For the
needs of the region, the seim was allowed to
Volume 13 - Issue 75
/ March 2024
207
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
establish additional local taxes up to 10% of the
main state tax. The decisions of the seim only
took effect after being approved by the emperor.
The work of the seim was led by the regional
marshal and his deputy, who were appointed by
the emperor from among the deputies, based on
the recommendation of the region’s president
(Dobrzhanskyi, 1999).
During the period between seim sessions, the full
power was concentrated in the hands of the
regional division. The division was responsible
for day-to-day management of the region’s
economy and institutions, represented the region
in all legal matters, prepared necessary
documents for seim sessions, and reported on its
activities to the seim.
The revolution of 1848 and subsequent defeats in
wars with France, Piedmont, and Prussia led to
the further evolution of the Austrian state. In
1867, the multinational Austrian state
transformed into the dualistic constitutional
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. State-legal
relations were built on the principles of
centralization in the sphere of defense, financial
system, foreign and customs policy.
Simultaneously, in order to shape nationwide
priorities, representative structures known as
“Delegations” were established, composed of 60
deputies from the Austrian and Hungarian
parliaments. This arrangement for forming
nationwide policies allowed representatives of
national minorities, including the Ukrainian
minority, to advocate for their own socio-
political priorities.
An important feature of the laws of the 1860s was
the wide proclamation of democratic values. The
texts declared the equality of all citizens of the
empire before the law, equal opportunities in
occupying state positions, freedom of movement,
inviolability of private property, confidentiality
of correspondence, the right to submit petitions
and requests, freedom of speech and press.
Article 19 of the Constitution held exceptional
significance, where it was stated:
All peoples of the state are equal and each people
has the unassailable right to preserve and develop
its nationality and language. The state recognizes
the equality of all regional languages in schools,
state institutions, and public life. In regions
where several peoples reside, educational
institutions must be organized in such a way that
without using force to study another regional
language, each of these peoples has the necessary
opportunities for education in their native
language (Dobrzhanskyi, 1999).
The evolution of state-legal institutions in the
Austro-Hungarian Empire occurred within the
broader context of European democracy. The
peoples of the empire, including the Ukrainian
population, gained the opportunity to advocate
for their own state-legal ideals based on
proclaimed political and legal priorities and
utilizing legal means.
The realization of Ukrainian national priorities
was also tied to the improvement of the judicial
system. The Law on Judicial Authority stipulated
that the organization and jurisdiction of courts
should be defined by separate laws. All judges
were declared independent. Judicial proceedings,
both in civil and criminal cases, were conducted
openly. The submission of complaints in criminal
cases was envisaged. The right to amnesty was
granted to the emperor. He also had the authority
to mitigate punishments imposed by the court
(Dobrzhanskyi, 1999).
The judicial system was characterized by the
separation of judicial and administrative
functions at all stages of the legal process, as well
as the establishment of a jury court. The Criminal
Procedure Code expanded the jurisdiction of jury
courts and included 22 types of serious crimes
within their jurisdiction, which carried a
minimum prison sentence of five years, as well
as nine crimes and two politically motivated
offenses (Kulchytskyi & Boyko, 2001: 138).
The state-legal system of Austria, and later the
Austro-Hungarian Empire, evolved over a long
historical period. The highest authority in the
country experienced several profound crises, but
each time managed to enact reforms that
facilitated the modernization of societal
relations.
Conclusions
It has been established that the formation and
realization of these ideals largely depend on the
awareness of one’s own ethnic identity,
influenced by the characteristics of the state-
territorial structure.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the territory
of Ukraine was part of two empires: the Russian
and the Austro-Hungarian. These circumstances
greatly influenced the process of shaping socio-
political ideals, the content of which was
determined by the peculiarities of the formation
208
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
of territories inhabited by Ukrainians. The state-
legal development of the Left-Bank Ukraine
(Hetmanate), associated with the events of the
Liberation War, established a tradition of
Cossack regimental structure with distinct
features of sole authority vested in the hetman.
Throughout the 18th century, the Cossack
leadership, led by the hetman, was unable to
preserve autonomous governance due to the
imperial policies of the Russian autocracy.
In the territory of Sloboda Ukraine, at the level
of regimental administration, a tradition of
hereditary power was formed. A characteristic
feature of the establishment of autocratic rule in
the southern regions of the empire was the
absence of a tradition of state-building. The
formation of governing bodies in Novorossiya
occurred within the framework of overall
imperial reforms (Wilson, 2024).
Starting from the late 18th century, the process of
forming imperial governing structures in Ukraine
began. The state-territorial system underwent
changes. These government measures, alongside
the goal of unifying the governance system of the
empire’s territories, aimed to eliminate the
traditions of Cossack statehood.
Within the guberniya (province) territory, the
monarch’s representative – the governor –
concentrated both police and administrative
authority in their hands. In addition to general
functions, it was the governor’s duty to suppress
even the slightest manifestations of national-
liberation movements (Ramji-Nogales, 2022:
152). In cases where such movements took on the
form of armed struggle (like the Polish uprising
of 1830), the government introduced the position
of a general-governor, endowed with unrestricted
police and administrative powers over the
territories of several guberniyas.
The abolition of serfdom brought about changes
in the system of state authority in the Russian
Empire. The judicial system and local self-
governing bodies needed further refinement. The
era of liberalism in the late 19th to early 20th
century presented ample opportunities for socio-
political activities. However, the reforms
undertaken did not find support among the
majority of Ukrainians, especially the peasantry.
Political and legal nihilism among Ukrainians
stemmed from the absence of mechanisms
linking central authority and society. Moreover,
autocracy viewed any form of pluralism with
distrust, leading to harsh repressive policies
against national movements. This fueled
Ukrainian skepticism towards democratic
reforms at the local level, which, while
conceptually democratic, were often unviable.
Contradictions also arose from the merging of
peasants’ socio-economic aspirations with the
national ideals of the intelligentsia.
Consequently, there arose a need for scholarly
works that analyzed the process of forming legal
consciousness in Ukrainian and Russian
societies, as well as the establishment and
programmatic demands of Russian and
Ukrainian political parties.
Despite the contradictions in socio-political
development, the annexation of Galicia and
Bukovina to the Austro-Hungarian Empire had
certain positive consequences, unlike the
perspectives formulated in Soviet historical
approaches. In the 1860s, a constitutional order
was established in Austria-Hungary, and broad
democratic freedoms were proclaimed.
According to the Constitution, the Ukrainian
community gained the right to autonomous
existence and development, as well as
participation in both national and local
parliamentary elections. Over the next decades,
political, economic, and socio-cultural life
became more active, and the Ukrainian
population came to realize the significance and
unity of their ethnic territory.
The process of national awareness was
influenced not only by the impact of European
philosophical and legal doctrines within the
territories of states that encompassed Ukrainian
lands, but also by the practical realization of
these doctrines through the lens of the socio-
political practices of the Ukrainian community.
Western Ukrainians were afforded the
opportunity to express and defend their national
and socio-economic interests within the
parliament. Thus, the Ukrainian community of
the Austro-Hungarian Empire, unlike that of the
Russian Empire, gained the chance to participate
in political, organizational, and cultural
activities. This underscores the need for attention
to the issue related to the activities of political
parties in Western Ukraine and their
representatives in parliament.
However, at the same time, the contradictions in
the position of the Ukrainian community were
driven by economic and social backwardness, as
well as a low level of legal culture. To this, one
should add the growing influence of Poles in
local self-governing bodies. These circumstances
prevented the full utilization of the rights and
freedoms guaranteed by the Austrian
Constitution and prevailing legislation.
Volume 13 - Issue 75
/ March 2024
209
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Bibliographic references
Andrusiak, T. G. (2008). Factors shaping the
legal consciousness of the Ukrainian
population in Galicia (1848-1914). Materials
of the IX All-Ukrainian Scientific-Practical
Conference “Supremacy of Law in the
Process of State-Building and Human Rights
Protection in Ukraine” (pp. 13-16). Ostroh:
Publishing House of the National University
“Ostroh Academy”.
Apanovych, O. (2000). God Follows the
Plow/Agroculture of Ukrainian Peasantry
and Cossacks. History of Ukraine, 1, 3-5.
https://javalibre.com.ua/java-
book/book/2917277
Boyko, I. (2022). Russian truth and its influence
on the formation and development of the
Ukrainian legal tradition. Bulletin of Lviv
University. Legal Series, 75.
http://publications.lnu.edu.ua/bulletins/index
.php/law/article/view/11672
Demyanko, V. (2001). Mental Characteristics of
Political Consciousness of Ukrainians. Man
and Politics, 1, 93-100.
Dnistrovsky, M. S. (1992). Borders of Ukraine.
Territorial and Administrative Structure.
Lviv: Svit.
Dobrzhanskyi, O. (1999). National Movement of
Ukrainians in Bukovina during the Second
Half of the 19th and Early 20th Century.
Chernivtsi: Golden Drums.
Dontsov, D. (1951). The spirit of our past.
Renaissance. life and load series, series 2.
https://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-
content/uploads/books/3517/file.pdf
Doroshenko, D. (1992). Outline of Ukrainian
History. Vol. II. From the Mid-17th Century.
Kyiv: Globus.
http://resource.history.org.ua/item/0007281
Fukuyama, F. (2020, October 15). The most
insidious threat. The renowned American
philosopher Francis Fukuyama discusses the
challenges the world is facing and the
implications of these challenges. New Voice.
https://acortar.link/QDIMde
Honcharenko, V. D. (1997a). Moscow Articles.
Anthology of the History of State and Law of
Ukraine. From ancient times to the beginning
of the 20th century. Kyiv: In Yure.
Honcharenko, V. D. (1997b). Hlukhiv Article.
Anthology of the History of State and Law of
Ukraine. From ancient times to the beginning
of the 20th century. Kyiv: In Yure.
Honcharenko, V.D. (1997c). Kolomatsky
Articles. Anthology of the History of State and
Law of Ukraine. In 2 volumes. From ancient
times to the beginning of the 20th century.
Kyiv: In Yure.
Kulchytskyi, V., & Boyko, I. (2001). The System
of Judicial Authorities in Galicia within the
Austro-Hungarian Empire. Ukrainian Law,
11, 137-139.
Lysiak-Rudnytsky, I. (1994). Ukraine between
the East and the West. Historical Essays.
Kyiv: Osnova.
https://chtyvo.org.ua/authors/Lysiak-
Rudnytskyi_Ivan/Istorychni_ese_Tom_1/
Marandici, I. (2020). Multiethnic parastates and
nation-building: the case of the Transnistrian
imagined community. Nationalities Papers,
48(1), 61-82.
Matsekevych, M. (1999). Constitutional
Electoral Law in Galicia as Part of Austria.
Law of Ukraine, 3, 91-92. (In Ukraine)
Matskevych, M. (2007). Reception of Austrian
state and legal culture in Galicia from 1771 to
1918. Law of Ukraine, 6, 134-137. (In
Ukraine)
Nahorna, L. P. (1998). Political Culture of the
Ukrainian People: Historical Retrospective
and Contemporary Realities. Kyiv: Stilos. (In
Ukraine)
Panashenko, V. V. (1991). Political System of
Ukraine in the Second Half of the 17th-18th
Centuries. History of Ukraine. From Ancient
Times to the End of the 19th Century. Two-
Volume Lecture Course, 1.
Prysiashniuk, V. P. (1999). Mentality of the
Ukrainian peasantry in the context of
capitalist transformation (second half of the
19th - early 20th century). Ukrainian
Historical Journal, 3, 23-32.
https://acortar.link/3pFMFL
Ramji-Nogales, J. (2022). Ukrainians in Flight:
Politics, Race, and Regional Solutions. AJIL
Unbound, 116, 150-154.
https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.22
Salnikova, S., Klymenko, E., & Yemelianova, Y.
(2022). Features of Consolidation of the
Ukrainian Nation in the Conditions of
Decentralization. In: Antipova, T. (eds)
Comprehensible Science. ICCS 2021.
Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol
315. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85799-
8_28
Serhiienko, G. Ya, Borysenko, V. Y.,
Markina, V. O., & Panashenko, V.V. (1979).
Second Half of the 17th-18th Centuries.
History of Ukrainian SSR, 2. Kyiv: Naukova
Dumka.
Shandra, V. (1998). Administrative Institutions
of Right-Bank Ukraine from the late 17th to
210
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
early 20th Century in Russian Legislation: A
Source-Analytical Review. Kyiv.
Subtelny, О. (1998). Ukraine. History. (4th ed.).
University Of Toronto Press. London:
Toronto Buffalo.
Terliuk, I. Y. (2021). Ukrainian national
statehood: formation of state and legal
tradition (second half of the XVI - early XX
century). (Doctoral dissertation) Lviv
Polytechnic National University.
https://acortar.link/8XqO5k
Tymoshenko, V. I. (1998). Montesquieu. Legal
Encyclopedia: In 6 volumes. Kyiv:
“Ukrainian Encyclopedia” named after M.P.
Bazhan.
http://elar.naiau.kiev.ua/jspui/handle/123456
789/7510
Usenko, I. B., & Kirsenko, M. V. (2008).
Constitutions of the Austrian Empire and the
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Encyclopedia
of the history of Ukraine. NAS of Ukraine.
Kyiv: Scientific Thought.
http://www.history.org.ua/?termin=Konstitut
sii_Avstriiskoy_imperii
Wilson, A. (2024). Ukraine at war: Baseline
identity and social construction. Nations and
Nationalism, 30(1), 8-17.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12986
Yurchenko, O. (1971). Ukrainian-Russian
Relations after 1917 in a Legal Aspect.
Biographical Notes about O. Yurchenko by
Ye. Hayvilska. Munich.
https://acortar.link/xEmDCR