THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION IN THE PRIORITY OF THE RULE OF LAW IN TIMES OF WAR

Abstract

The rule of law under martial law is one of the most complex and urgent issues of modern legal science, as it defines the limits of permissible restrictions on human rights and the degree of state responsibility for upholding democratic principles in times of extreme threats. This topic requires balancing security, legal certainty, and compliance with international human rights standards. The study aims to identify and characterize the constitutional, judicial, and administrative mechanisms that ensure the rule of law under martial law. The methodological framework includes comparative legal, systemic, institutional, and analytical methods, as well as generalization of statistical data from the World Justice Project, V-Dem, Freedom House, and Transparency International. The results show that the effectiveness of legal institutions in wartime depends on judicial independence, legislative transparency, and the proportionality of legal restrictions. A comparative analysis revealed that democratic states with strong constitutional control mechanisms (e.g., Germany, France, Poland) preserve legal stability, while excessive power concentration undermines the rule of law (e.g., Hungary, Vietnam). The Ukrainian experience demonstrates that military measures can coexist with adherence to international humanitarian norms and parliamentary oversight. The practical significance of the study lies in identifying models of legal stability applicable for improving martial law legislation, developing public monitoring mechanisms, and preventing abuse of emergency powers.