On June 14, Mykola Stetsenko, President of the Ukrainian Bar Association and Managing Partner of AVELLUM, took part in the presentation of the Ukrainian edition of Tom Bingham's book The Rule of Law. The event was organized by the USAID “Justice for All” Program and moderated by Serhiy Holovatyi, Justice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (2018-2024), Acting Chair of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (December 29, 2020 – May 29, 2024).

At the book presentation, the UBA President delivered a speech, the text of which he later published on his blog on LIGA.net. Below is the speech for your review.

I want to start by thanking Serhiy Petrovych for his tremendous effort in bringing this work to life, which I hope will inspire many legal scholars, politicians, journalists, and all citizens of Ukraine.

I won’t delve deeply into the essence of The Rule of Law itself, as no one could explain it better than Serhiy Petrovych—except perhaps the author himself, were he among us today. However, I do want to touch on certain historical parallels and conclusions I’ve drawn from reading this book.

One of the chapters discusses the historical foundation of the rule of law in Great Britain and Western civilization as a whole. It's worth noting the significance of the Magna Carta and the Petition of Right, as well as the historical context that gave rise to these documents. These laid the groundwork for the absence of absolutism in Great Britain. Although there were moments of absolutism throughout history, British society consistently returned to the basic social contract, as embodied in the Magna Carta and the subsequent agreements, which later evolved through case law and Parliamentary acts.

I can’t help but mention that dictator Putin often speaks of the struggle between two worlds: the Russian world and the Anglo-Saxon world. Oddly enough, I believe there’s some truth in this. The Anglo-Saxon world, which began developing over a thousand years ago, was based on a fundamental respect for human rights. Citizens in Anglo-Saxon societies actively fought for their rights, through struggle, philosophical reflection, and economic progress. In contrast, this did not happen in the Russian or broader Asian world. In fact, the author notes that even the rest of Europe only began to catch up to the Anglo-Saxon world in the 19th and 20th centuries. The reasons for this are perhaps best left to historians and sociologists to explore.

But how does this relate to the rule of law and these historical reflections? In my view, the rule of law is inherent to Ukrainian society. Of course, human rights are intrinsic to all people, but when it comes to social relationships, I believe Ukrainian society has a lot in common with British society.

If we look at the history of Ukraine, it’s clear that during the short periods of Ukraine’s independence, the rule of law was always a part of our ethos and culture. This can be seen in the principles of electability, collective decision-making through assemblies, and the fight for freedom of thought, religion, and movement.

Perhaps even more so, there is a spirit that exists in this land. It’s hard to say why, but many people who come to Ukraine and are not ethnically Ukrainian eventually embrace the ideas of freedom and justice that we hold dear. That’s why, in my opinion, we’ve seen one revolution after another over the last 30 years—each one driven by the desire to uphold human rights, freedom, justice, and equality under the law.

This pursuit of the rule of law and the protection of human rights in Ukraine has endured, despite the efforts of various empires, and continues to resurface time and again. It would be fascinating for historians to study why this is so. Is it something in the fields and steppes? But the Mongolian steppes didn’t create democracy in Central Asia. Is it the forests? Yet Russian forests didn’t give rise to democracy either. Perhaps it’s our forest-steppe! It’s evident, however, that the Vikings had a significant influence on the development of Ukraine. And even before the Vikings, the proto-Slavic tribes likely lived by principles of collective decision-making and mutual respect, rather than absolutism.

It’s also worth mentioning the current connection between the English and Ukrainian peoples, and the extraordinary, and perhaps surprising, level of British support for Ukraine. The British have been more resolute in their support for Ukraine than anyone else in the world. Perhaps historians will find an explanation for this bond, as the same Vikings who conquered ancient Rus’ and shaped it also conquered and transformed Britain.

In this commitment to the rule of law, we are fundamentally different from Russians: in values, ideals, and mindset. And today, while Ukrainians have this desire for the rule of law, many still lack a deep understanding of the complexity of this concept.

There is a historical explanation for this: over the past centuries, Ukraine has been subjected to various imperial influences—Russia, Poland, Turkey, and, to a lesser extent, Austria. As a result, Ukrainians have not yet fully completed, as a society, the journey toward a comprehensive understanding of the rule of law, as depicted in Tom Bingham’s book.

Most people, of course, don’t have a natural inclination toward active political or social life. They are passive rather than "passionary." This is normal in any society. However, the "passionary" part of our society, while aware of this drive, has not yet transformed it into a new paradigm or set of rules for society. We haven’t had an open societal dialogue on the rule of law.

I can’t help but highlight the role of the Ukrainian Bar Association in this process and discourse. Recently, in May of this year, we held an event together with the Aspen Institute and with support from USAID, called Public Dialogue: Dimensions of Justice. We brought together judges, journalists, and practicing lawyers to discuss the rule of law, particularly aspects such as the right to defense and a fair trial, the role of lawyers in the judicial process, and the dialogue between the judiciary and society. This event is just the beginning of a series of similar gatherings that we plan to use to draw attention to the issue of the rule of law in Ukraine.

In closing, I’d like to thank Serhiy Petrovych for his decades of work. I first came to appreciate Serhiy Petrovych’s efforts in the late 1990s when I was a student visiting the Ukrainian Legal Foundation’s library. It was the only place in Kyiv, and likely in all of Ukraine, where one could find English-language books by leading scholars of international public law. As students, we were then competing in the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition, and that library was the only place where we could find answers and references from not just Soviet and Ukrainian scholars but also top international legal experts.

So, thank you, Serhiy Petrovych, for your tremendous work and efforts over all these years. And thank you for introducing the term "rule of law" into common usage in Ukraine, and now advancing it in its new form—правовладдя (rule of law in its broader sense). Thank you for raising these challenging questions in society, encouraging people to think about such complex and important concepts. May you continue to inspire us with your ideals and push us to think critically.

Thank you and Glory to Ukraine!