MOBILIZATION POWERS OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT BODIES: LEGAL RISKS AND INSTITUTIONAL GAPS

Abstract

The article provides a comprehensive legal and institutional analysis of the mobilisation powers of local self-government bodies in Ukraine under martial law and ongoing transformations of the public administration system. The growing role of territorial communities in ensuring national defence has led to a significant expansion of their competences in the fields of mobilisation preparedness, military registration, notification of citizens, cooperation with territorial recruitment centres, reservation of employees, and material and technical support to the defence forces. The practical implementation of these responsibilities has demonstrated both the high adaptive capacity of local authorities and the existence of a number of systemic challenges. The study clarifies the definitions of mobilisation, mobilisation preparedness and the special period, determines the place of communities within the national security framework, and differentiates the competences of local self-government bodies, local state administrations and military administrations. Particular attention is paid to the evolution of the regulatory framework in 2022–2025, which aims to detail conscription procedures, introduce digital solutions in military registration, and strengthen the liability of officials. The research focuses on legal risks arising from the implementation of mobilisation tasks at the local level. These include legislative inconsistencies, threats to citizens’ rights, potential abuses, excessive personal liability of local officials, and the dependence of effectiveness on inter-institutional coordination. At the same time, the war has revealed institutional gaps related to the lack of specialised units, insufficient human resources, undeveloped cooperation procedures, and the absence of clear algorithms for transferring authority from military administrations back to elected bodies. The article substantiates the need for further improvement of legal regulation, enhancement of local capacities, introduction of standardised mechanisms of cooperation, and maintenance of a balance between centralised defence management and decentralisation principles. The findings contribute to shaping a sustainable model of local participation in the national security system.