TRANSFORMATION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GOALS IN CONDITIONS OF MARTIAL STATE AND THREATS TO TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY

Abstract

The article examines the transformation of the goals of public administration under conditions of martial law and threats to the territorial integrity of Ukraine as a complex administrative-legal and institutional process determined by changes in the nature of public power, state policy priorities, and the functioning of executive authorities. It is substantiated that, in the context of armed aggression, the traditional understanding of public administration goals – primarily focused on stable socio-economic development and sectoral policy implementation – requires fundamental reconsideration and adaptation to security-driven challenges. The article proceeds from the premise that the goals of public administration during wartime cannot be reduced solely to the defensive function of the state. A triadic construction of public administration goals is proposed, encompassing: ensuring defense and protection of territorial integrity; preserving the constitutional order and the continuity of public authority; and creating legal and institutional preconditions for post-war recovery and development. It is argued that these components do not exist as autonomous or mutually exclusive objectives but are interdependent and implemented simultaneously within a unified governance process. Particular attention is devoted to the analysis of the institutional unity of the triadic construction, which is conceptualized as a key condition of national resilience. The article demonstrates that imbalance among defensive, constitutional, and recovery-oriented goals leads to a decline in the effectiveness of public administration. The absolutization of defense objectives may result in the erosion of legal guarantees and the rule of law; neglect of security priorities threatens sovereignty and territorial integrity; while the absence of a recovery-oriented perspective causes institutional exhaustion of the state. In this context, the triadic construction is substantiated as a conceptual model for governing the state under conditions of war and postwar transformation. The study proposes an authorial understanding of institutional effectiveness of public administration, defined as the capacity of the system of executive authorities to ensure coordinated, controllable, and legally determined implementation of state policy goals under conditions of heightened threats. Institutional effectiveness is not limited to the formal exercise of powers; rather, it presupposes clearly defined objectives, adequate resource provision, analytical capacity, and mechanisms for evaluating the outcomes of administrative decisions. A separate part of the article is devoted to the analytically supported governance cycle as a tool for implementing public administration goals in the field of national security. It is demonstrated that effective governance under martial law must be based on a consistent combination of strategic planning, forecasting, ongoing analysis of the security environment, and ex post evaluation of decision-making outcomes. The necessity of normative consolidation of this approach as an element of administrative-legal support for executive authorities is substantiated. Significant attention is paid to the financial dimension of the transformation of public administration goals. The article shows that the realization of security, stabilization, and recovery objectives is impossible without proper budgetary, tax, and financial-legal support. Financial provision is conceptualized as an institutional condition of public administration effectiveness. It is argued that instability in budget planning, fragmentation of tax decisions, and excessive reliance on discretionary (“manual”) financing mechanisms reduce the manageability of public authority under wartime conditions. In conclusion, the article argues that the transformation of public administration goals under martial law and threats to territorial integrity should not be perceived as a temporary deviation from a “peacetime” governance model, but rather as a structural shift in the paradigm of public power. The doctrinal approaches proposed in the article may be used to improve administrative legislation, strategic documents in the field of national security, and the practical activities of executive authorities during wartime and post-war recovery.