Conceptual Foundations of the Administrative-Legal Compensation Mechanism for Damage from the Armed Aggression against Ukraine: A System of Special Principles

Abstract

Purpose. The aim of the article is to clarify the substance and specific features of the special principles that underpin the activities of public authorities in compensating for damage caused by the armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine, and to establish their role in shaping an effective administrative-legal mechanism of compensation.

Methods. The methodological framework combines systemic analysis with comparative-legal, formal-legal and structural-functional methods. Together, these approaches reveal the distinctive features of the special principles against the background of the general foundations of administrative-legal regulation, clarify their substantive content and arrange them according to the scope and specific nature of their legal effect.

Results. The study finds that, in the conditions of armed conflict and post-war reconstruction, the compensation activities of public authorities cannot rest solely on the general foundations of administrative-legal regulation and require a system of special principles that reflect the particular features of damage recording, loss assessment, examination of victims' applications and the organisation of recovery efforts. The article identifies five special principles based on their functional correspondence to specific elements of the compensation cycle. The principle of prioritising the interests of affected persons sets the human-centred standard for decision-making. The principle of documentation builds the evidentiary basis of the mechanism and supports the operation of the State Register of Damaged and Destroyed Property. The principle of reintegration orients compensation toward the full restoration of the affected person's social standing. The principle of institutional capacity guarantees that the decisions taken can actually be implemented. The principle of “building back better”, as conceptually enshrined in the Sendai Framework, provides the strategic orientation for reconstruction. The analysis also exposes five gaps in the current compensation legislation, including a narrow range of compensation recipients; the absence of a hierarchy of means of proof; the lack of an inter-agency coordination mechanism; the inadequacy of institutional capacity standards for the relevant commissions; and the absence of any explicit normative recognition of the “build back better” principle.

Conclusions. Taken together, these principles form a coherent conceptual basis for the compensation mechanism and each carries its own normative content while operating in close interplay with the others. Only when applied jointly they can transform the right to compensation from a formally recognised entitlement into a genuinely effective tool for protecting affected persons, strengthening public trust in the state and laying the groundwork for a resilient model of Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction.