Legal regulation of the activity of military justice bodies in Ukraine during the time of the Central Rada
Authors: Eder P. T. 
Published: February 2024

The article analyzes the formation of legal regulation of the organization and activities of military justice bodies in Ukraine under the Central Rada. It is shown that due to political circumstances, in particular, the fact that most of the Ukrainian lands were part of the Russian Empire, the organization of military justice was based on the Russian legislation of the second half of the 19th century – the beginning of the 20th century. The Ukrainian revolution, which began in 1917, proposed a solution to the issue of the creation of military justice bodies. One of the acute problems was the lack of qualified Ukrainian lawyers. The most widespread at that time were crimes against the state and public order, which posed a danger to the current authorities and revolutionary changes in general. Therefore, on November 13, 1917, the General Secretariat created the Commission for the Protection of Order in Ukraine (the Commission for the Protection of the Territory). It included representatives of individual secretaries, including military, land, food, judicial, and national affairs. In accordance with the initiatives for the development of the Ukrainian judiciary, on December 2, 1917, the General Court of the Ukrainian People’s Republic was created, which performed the functions of the main military court - until the creation of a specialized military court.

It was revealed that during the formation of military justice under the Central Rada, considerable attention was paid to military prosecutors. The position of prosecutors was quite important during the implementation of military justice. Military prosecutors and their assistants did not conduct preliminary investigations, but supervised compliance with the law. However, they had the right to be present during investigative actions. Persons who held the positions of prosecutors and fellow prosecutors of district courts remained out of state. Upon receiving the materials of the preliminary investigation, the military prosecutor was obliged to decide whether the case is subject to military judicial authority, whether the investigation has been carried out in full, whether the case should be transferred to court, or whether it can be resolved in a disciplinary manner. In the case of incompleteness of the conducted investigation, the prosecutor had the right to refer the case to further investigation. The prosecutor had no right to change the order of jurisdiction. If the commander agreed with the prosecutor’s conclusion that the case was not subject to consideration by a military court, he prepared the corresponding order.

It is emphasized that the establishment of legal regulation of the organization and activities of military justice bodies at the initial stage of the Ukrainian revolution was a complex process that took place in the context of important political events. One of the important tasks of military justice was to ensure discipline in the army and fight against abuse of power by military officials. The Central Rada’s steps at the initial stage of the Ukrainian revolution were aimed at the Ukrainization and democratization of the court in Ukraine, the development of a number of draft laws that were supposed to outline the judicial system on the basis of autonomy. However, even the Ukrainian People’s Republic, proclaimed in November 1917, recognized Russian legislation as valid, except for cases when this legislation contradicted the law adopted by the Central Rada.

It has been established that in the initial period of the Ukrainian revolution, a number of laws and other normative legal acts were adopted that determined the activities of the army and only indirectly – military justice. In the Ukrainian military judiciary at the beginning of the revolution, the principles of independence of judges from the administration were established, which was ensured by the procedure of their appointment; the complex procedure for bringing them to disciplinary responsibility; refusal of the inquisitorial type of criminal process; separation of the court from the prosecution (entrusted to the prosecutor’s office); dividing the criminal process into two parts - the investigation and the court itself; providing the accused with the right to defense; publicity, oral and continuous nature of the trial, etc.