2026/03/09 by Volodymyr Fiedosieiev, Vladyslav Kubalskyi, Nina Doroshchuk +2 · 1 voice
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #War, Ethics, and Justification #European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies #Military History and Strategy
paper · doi:10.1080/08850607.2026.2637902
openalex publication_date 2026/03/09 · openalex created_date 2026/03/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/15
The full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation made it hard to use criminal law to fight crimes against national security. Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which is called “Collaborationism,” made it even harder to tell the difference between it and treason. Collaborationism existed prior to this legislative amendment; however, the conditions of hybrid warfare and extended occupation since 2014 have resulted in diverse behavioral patterns, from coerced interaction to intentional support for the aggressor, necessitating exacting standards and commensurate human rights intervention. The established concept of treason and the intricate formulation of combined activities result in the creation of rivalrous domains and overlapping rules, hence generating the potential for arbitrary qualification. The paper seeks to elucidate issues pertaining to legal clarity, to provide criteria for differentiating between these two components in wartime contexts, and to evaluate the impact of present legislation on fundamental rights, including freedom of speech. This doctrinal-empirical study employs analytical, synthetic, inductive, deductive, analogical, abstract, and generalizing methodologies to assess law enforcement in hybrid warfare contexts and to delineate constituent offenses. It is founded on the principles of Articles 111 and 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, judicial precedents, scholarly publications, and international treaties.