Search

Begin New Search Topic Reform Author Valeriya Klymenko

1. Citizens of Ukraine on Security: Personal, National, and its Elements

Author:
Alla Chernova and Valeriya Klymenko
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
Abstract:
BACK TO RESOURCES CITIZENS OF UKRAINE ON SECURITY SURVEY 2016 Abstract This publication presents the results of a nationwide sociological survey conducted by the Razumkov Centre's Sociological Service in the framework of Ukraine's security governance challenges monitoring project, implemented by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), jointly with Razumkov Centre, with support from the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The survey and the publication were made possible through financial support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The assessments and conclusions made by the authors do not necessarily coincide with official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The survey was conducted by the Razumkov Centre's Sociological Service on 27-31 May 2016, in all regions of Ukraine, except Crimea and the occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. 2,019 respondents aged above 18 years were polled. The sampling error does not exceed 2.3%.
Topic:
Security, Gender Issues, Human Rights, Sociology, Law Enforcement, Reform, Conflict, and State
Political Geography:
Geneva, Europe, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe

2. Constitutional Process: Current Results, Risks and Prospects

Author:
Valeriya Klymenko
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
National Security and Defence
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
The current stage of the constitutional process was initiated by the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko in March 2015 with the establishment of the Constitutional Commission.1 Already on 1 July 2015, the Parliament registered the Draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine – on decentralisation” (Reg. No. 2217a), developed by the Constitutional Commission and submitted by the President of Ukraine. On 31 August 2015, the day this bill was approved, grenades exploded in front of the Parliament on the Constitution Square. The presence in this bill on decentralisation of the controversial Paragraph 18 “Transitional Provisions” did not allow entering the process of final adoption of amendments to the Constitution (on decentralisation) in compliance with requirements of Article 155. On 25 November 2015, the subsequent Bill “On Amendments to the Constitution – on justice” (Reg. No. 3524) was registered in Parliament. In February 2016, the bill was approved, and on 2 June 2016, finally adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. For the first time since the “political reforms” of December 2004, significant amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine were legally introduced. The adoption of a decision by Parliament to amend the Constitution of Ukraine in the part of justice, did not complete the reform of the judiciary. The fact that a number of amendments to the Constitution raised deep concerns among representatives of the expert community, and even more the judicial community, cannot be ignored. However, a number of updated provisions of the Constitution, implemented in effective mechanisms of special laws, are capable of positively influencing the judiciary. In this regard, firstly, the adoption by Parliament of the Law of Ukraine “On Judicial System and Status of Judges” in an unconstitutional way, with a gross violation of the Verkhovna Rada requirements cannot but cause concern. Second, the main content of the implemented law, introduced to the Parliament without obtaining opinions of the Scientific Experts Office or the Venice Commission, or discussing it in the expert community, can cause a real chaos in the process of implementing constitutional changes. The question remains uncertain about the prospects of the Draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine – on human rights and freedoms” prepared by the Working Group of the Constitutional Commission. The analytical report has summarized theoretical grounds of regulations contained in the draft law. Since the work on the draft amendments to the Constitution was completed by the Working Group, the Constitutional Commission must make a final conclusion as to its readiness for submission to the President, who will decide on the introduction of a relevant bill to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Both aspects of constitutional amendments were analysed in the study by the Razumkov Centre, which is reflected in the content of the Analytical Report.
Topic:
Human Rights, Reform, Constitution, and Judiciary
Political Geography:
Europe and Ukraine

3. Law Enforcement System in Ukraine: Status, Problems, Prospects for Reform

Author:
Valeriya Klymenko and Hanna Pashkova
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
National Security and Defence
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
The year 2013 saw the beginning of a unique period in the history of an independent Ukraine. The victory of the Euromaidan, which seemed to be a successful completion of the Revolution of Dignity, in reality was merely the first step on the path of revolutionary transformation of all aspects in the life of Ukrainian society and state. Security issues are of high priority in the ambitious plans of reforms initiated by the Ukrainian government: “The security vector is our certainty about our tomorrow, being peaceful and happy. It is our certainty of justice and inevitable punishment for each crime. Our certainty that no person is unfairly convicted. The certainty of guaranteed security of investments and property”.1 Guaranteeing the required level of domestic security, primarily the security of a person and a citizen, largely depends on the capability of the law enforcement agencies to perform the functions entrusted to them by national law, and their ability to serve the society and not the government or their own selfish interests. In the system of functions delegated by the state to law enforcement agencies, the policing function has a special role, since the police, in addition to being the most numerous structure, is on the “frontier”, where a citizen may receive protection from, or be persecuted by, the state. For this reason, police reform is receiving considerable attention from the Ukrainian government, society and Ukraine’s international partners. The overwhelming majority of police officers also acknowledge the need for radical change, being dissatisfied with working conditions, level of social security and the negative view of their work on the part of society. Analysis of the current reform efforts leads to the conclusion that, despite the presence of many extraordinary aspects and significant positive differences, they still have many features typical of the prior unsuccessful reform attempts. The most important reasons impeding the implementation of the generally positive declarations and concept documents include the lack of political will as well as the pursuit of political and private ends that have nothing in common with the national interests or international standards. Taking into account our own errors is as important for success as studying the diverse international experience. The lack of coordination of reforms from a single centre, despite the formal presence of the respective structure, inefficient use of the tightly limited resources and attempts to substitute minor changes (restructuring, personnel rotations, name changes, etc.) for a true transformation – all of this has been seen on multiple occasions before. The lack of political will is most often mentioned by experts and community activists looking for answers to the questions why the reforms are advancing so slowly or why the results claimed by the politicians remain hardly noticeable for civilians. Society and the entities being reformed may become more optimistic about the success of the reforms if the Government sincerely demonstrates its interest in developing a European model of the police service, and, most importantly, proves it by real actions. The active participation by community activists, non-governmental organisations, and international partners in the reform processes are important but merely auxiliary factors. The duration and resources of a powerful international support are limited and directly depend on the demonstration of practical results. The analytical report is intended to make an intellectual contribution to the joint effort of developing the Ukrainian law enforcement agencies, whose performance is evaluated not by statistics or the opinion of the government, but by the satisfaction of society with the quality of the respective services, the citizens’ feeling of safety and justice and their level of trust in and respect for those who protect them.
Topic:
Governance, Law Enforcement, Public Opinion, Reform, and Legitimacy
Political Geography:
Europe and Ukraine

4. Judicial Reform in Ukraine: Current Results, Prospects and Risks of the Constitutional Stage

Author:
Valeriya Klymenko
Publication Date:
01-2013
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
National Security and Defence
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
The process of establishing the judiciary in Ukraine since its independence has been quite inconsistent and contradictory – not only due to its heritage, but also because it has often been accompanied by acute political confrontation and attempts of opposing political forces and governmental teams to gain control over the judiciary. Reformation activity that was initiated and implemented in this period did not lead to establishment of an independent and fair court in Ukraine. After the 2010 Presidential Election, the new President Viktor Yanukovych announced that another judicial reform was going to take place, which led to dramatic changes in the national judiciary. Analysis of these changes and their consequences gives reasons to assume that, through this reform, the President managed to enhance his control over judicial authority, to restrict its independence, and to weaken self-government of judges. Significant rotation amongst judges also took place. In general, it has considerably deteriorated judicial situation in Ukraine. Today, the judicial reform has reached its final – constitutional – stage. On 10 October 2013, the Verkhovna Rada pre-approved the Presidential draft Law “On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine Strengthening the Independence of Judges”. The corresponding Decree of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine was supported by 244 deputies. All opposition factions of the Parliament (Batkivshchyna, UDAR, Svoboda) manifested against adoption of the law claiming that implementation of its provisions would compromise not only the judicial independence, but also the democracy in Ukraine. The course of preparation and adoption of this draft Law (obtaining, inter alia, positive resolution of the Venice Commission) revealed tendencies that have been characteristic of the 2010 judiciary reform since its initiation. Thus, national legislation in the recent years has been using European standards in quite a peculiar way by borrowing the form and filling it up with “appropriate” contents. In fact, what we have now is not an approximation of national laws to international judicial norms and standards, but adjusting these norms to situational needs by using controlled and dependent judiciary in Ukraine. Hence, this is a selective adoption of recommendations and guidelines of international institutions. As it is widely known, the Venice Commission gave a generally positive opinion on the draft Law mentioned above. It was this draft (as well as the resolution of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the declaration signed by 30 deputies of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) that the President’s representative and deputies of the Party of the Regions faction mostly relied on when encouraging their colleagues to support pre-approving the bill. Accepting the above-mentioned documents of European institutions we should obviously have some reservations. Firstly, the draft law contains genuine “European” provisions able to deceive European structures that evaluate new laws from their own European perspective. Secondly, current evaluations of the “Ukrainian progress” by European institutions have somewhat enforced nature stipulated by soon-to-happen Vilnius summit and possibly by the Association Agreement to be signed between the European Union and Ukraine at the summit. While mainly stressing its positive progress towards the association, Europe also seeks to maintain Ukraine’s European integration prospects. Thirdly, there are reasons to assume that current authorities have used peculiar means to push its legislative initiatives not only inside (in the Parliament and Constitutional Court), but also outside the country – on the international realm. Preliminary approval of the Presidential draft Law on amending the Constitution has had a dramatic impact on the judicial reform. On the one hand, it has enabled to legitimise the key legislative changes approved in 2010 and to enshrine provisions in the Constitutions, implementation of which may politicise the judiciary to an even bigger extent and increase the dependence of judges. On the other hand, it has generated a political and expert discussion aimed at searching for a compromise, which results might involve the following: excluding the most risky provisions for the independence of judges and courts, at least, and preparing a new bill approved by all key political forces of the country, at best. Current situation calls for ensuring fair and independent justice, as well as stimulates governmental representatives, opposition and the society to look for optimal ways out.
Topic:
Governance, Reform, Constitution, Judiciary, and Norms
Political Geography:
Europe and Ukraine