Реформування інституту громадянства України: подвійне громадянство в контексті євроінтеграції та війни
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is determined that the adaptation of Ukrainian citizenship legislation to European Union standards is a necessary step to ensure Ukraine’s effective integration into the European legal space. The article analyzes the main legal challenges associated with the transition from the traditional model of single citizenship to the potential introduction of dual citizenship. Particular attention is paid to the transformation of Ukraine’s constitutional doctrine in the context of the full-scale war that began in 2022 and growing political pressure from the Ukrainian diaspora and international partners. Based on a comparative analysis of the approaches of EU member states (in particular Germany, Canada, and other countries), the author justifies the possibility of gradually reforming Ukrainian legislation while complying with security criteria and protecting state sovereignty. Key areas for change have been identified, including: constitutional interpretation or revision of Article 4 of the Constitution of Ukraine, legislative regulation of restrictions on persons with dual citizenship, and the creation of specialized institutions to coordinate harmonization processes. A legal analysis of draft law No. 11469 has been carried out, the provisions of which have been criticized by human rights organizations due to the threat of statelessness. The issue of compliance with the standards of the European Court of Human Rights in the field of granting and deprivation of citizenship has been raised. The article examines both the normative and practical aspects of institutional modernization: the creation of fast-track verification bodies, the introduction of appeal mechanisms, and the consideration of the experience of EU countries in protecting the rights of displaced persons and volunteers. It is emphasized that dual citizenship can serve as a tool for mobilizing Ukrainians abroad, reducing the outflow of skilled personnel, and strengthening democratic participation. At the same time, the author points to the need to introduce clear restrictions related to national security and to build public consensus on the legitimacy of the new model. Citizenship reform is seen as part of a broader process of constitutional renewal in Ukraine, which should ensure a balance between human rights, sovereignty, and European integration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".