Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
8. Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Kongresi, Trabzon, Türkiye, 8 - 10 Ekim 2025, (Özet Bildiri)
The
objective of this paper is to explore how Giorgio Agamben’s expansion of the
concept of “state of exception” has been visible in the political practices of
Ukraine and Russia during the ongoing war. The concept of the “state of
exception” refers to a condition where standard legal norms are suspended as a
response to a real or perceived crisis. It provides a framework to understand
governance at times of conflict. The concept is expanded by Giorgio Agamben, a
political philosopher, who argues that during a period of crisis, a sovereign’s
power increases to an extent that they decide when the law ceases to apply.
While the initial emergence of this concept was about the necessity of such
power, Agamben’s expansion of the concept focuses on the risks that might occur
if this power is normalized. These risks are defined as erosion of democratic
norms and structures, obstruction of freedom and institutionalization of
extraordinary ruling mechanisms.
The
ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine presents how the state of exception was
invoked in wartime. In Ukraine, this concept was officially declared through
the entering into force of martial law, which is a permissible response to an
external aggression under Ukrainian constitution. This law enabled the
Ukrainian government to employ executive authority by restricting certain
rights regarding freedom and delay democratic processes such as the elections,
which was supposed to happen in 2024 but could not due to martial law not
allowing presidential elections. While these measures have been widely accepted
by the Ukrainian public as the ongoing war constitutes an existential threat,
the implications raise the question of whether the long-term integrity of democratic
institutions could be maintained in a post-war scenario.
On
the other hand, the “state of exception” concept could be observed in Russia
from another perspective. While martial law was introduced by Russia only in
the regions it invaded, it implemented emergency style measures such as
increased censorhip, restriction of public protests, expanded surveillance and
penalties for anti-war expressions. These measures were employed under the name
of ensuring national security and stability, but they reflect an environment
where emergency conditions become a base for the normalization of authoritarian
governance. According to Agamben, emergency becomes the norm in such
conditions, as the war is used to assert increased control.
Briefly,
it could be inferred that both cases present how the state of exception is
utilized as a political tool to consolidate power for different purposes. This
comparative analysis presents how this concept becomes justifiable under
certain contexts and displays the vulnerability of a legal order during
conflict times.
Anahtar Kelimeler: state of exception, Russia, Ukraine, emergency
governance