ADVOCACY MECHANISMS FOR PROTECTING WAR-AFFECTED PEOPLE

Abstract

Introduction. The full-scale war against Ukraine has changed the very fabric of interaction between the state, local self-government, civil society and people who have suffered from hostilities, occupation, displacement or loss of property. Different legal statuses and needs now overlap within public administration: internally displaced persons, veterans, their family members, persons with disabilities, people without documents or housing, families of missing persons, and residents of de-occupied and frontline communities. In such circumstances, advocacy can no longer be understood merely as an information campaign, a public appeal or pressure on an official. It operates as a public-administration bridge: it translates a person’s lived problem into the language of procedure, competence, decision-making, budgeting and inter-agency action.

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to provide a theoretical justification of advocacy mechanisms for protecting the rights of people affected by armed conflicts in the public administration system of Ukraine, as well as to identify advocacy actors, instruments of influence on managerial decisions, typical points of inter-agency inconsistency and the role of civil society in protecting the rights of IDPs, veterans, persons with disabilities and other affected groups.

Materials and methods. The study is based on Ukrainian legislation concerning the rights of internally displaced persons, veterans, persons with disabilities, social services, administrative procedure and public consultations; works by Ukrainian scholars on advocacy, civil society, local self-government and public policy; analytical materials prepared by Ukrainian civil society, human rights and international organizations. The research applies theoretical generalization, comparative analysis, systematization, legal analysis, problem-oriented modelling and logical generalization.

Results. The article proposes an author’s understanding of advocacy in the protection of war-affected people as evidence-based, targeted and procedure-oriented influence on public decisions. Such influence combines legal aid, monitoring of administrative practice, work with individual cases, communication, coalition action, participation in consultations, strategic appeals and changes in administrative algorithms. Four levels of advocacy are distinguished: individual, group, institutional and policy-normative. It is argued that the most vulnerable link is often not the absence of legal guarantees as such, but the gap between the legal norm, data, institutional competence, community resources and the real accessibility of public services.

Discussion. Further research should focus on developing indicators for assessing advocacy campaigns in public administration, analysing digital advocacy tools, evaluating the participation of IDP councils, veterans’ organizations and human rights coalitions in recovery policy, and comparing Ukrainian and European practices of crisis governance.