The parliamentary session of 26 May showed that Ukraine’s wartime legislative agenda is increasingly moving from crisis response to institutional reconstruction. At the centre of the decisions were human rights protection, international anti-corruption obligations, investor confidence and the broader question of trust in the state.
| Human rights Draft Law No. 13181 was adopted in the first reading. It aims to update the legal framework for the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights. |
Anti-corruption standards Draft Law No. 15056 was adopted in the first reading. Ukraine is adapting its legislation to the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. |
| Investor protection Resolution No. 15219 established a Temporary Special Commission of the Verkhovna Rada on the protection of investors’ rights. |
Customs reform Draft Law No. 12360 on assessing the efficiency and performance of customs authorities did not receive sufficient parliamentary support. |
More than a vote: a test of institutional trust
For a country that is simultaneously fighting a war, advancing towards European integration and trying to preserve economic activity, parliamentary decisions increasingly carry a dual meaning. They do not merely change individual legal provisions. They also show whether the state is capable of modernising its core institutions under constant pressure.
That is why the Verkhovna Rada’s decisions of 26 May should not be read as a simple list of votes. They form a wider political signal. Parliament moved forward with updating Ukraine’s key human rights institution, adapting anti-corruption legislation to international standards and creating a dedicated parliamentary mechanism for the protection of investors’ rights.
In this logic, human rights, anti-corruption policy and investor protection are not separate files. Together, they form one institutional framework: whether Ukraine can build a stronger state not after the war, but during the war.
Updating the law on the Human Rights Commissioner
The Verkhovna Rada adopted in the first reading Draft Law No. 13181, which is designed to update the legal basis for the activities of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights. According to the official parliamentary communication, the current framework law was adopted in 1997 and no longer fully reflects the modern challenges in the field of protecting human and civil rights and freedoms.
This decision is particularly important in wartime. Under martial law, the institution of the Human Rights Commissioner deals not only with traditional violations of citizens’ rights, but also with issues generated by Russia’s war against Ukraine: protection of civilians, the rights of internally displaced persons, violations in temporarily occupied territories, the rights of servicemen and their families, access to legal protection and the humanitarian consequences of aggression.
If the state does not update the tools available to its human rights institution, it effectively forces that institution to operate with the legal language of the previous century. A new framework law should provide the Commissioner with more effective mechanisms to respond to human rights violations and strengthen the institutional capacity of the office.
In a wartime democracy, human rights cannot be treated as a secondary issue. On the contrary, the quality of human rights mechanisms becomes one of the key indicators of Ukraine’s democratic resilience.
Anti-corruption adaptation to international standards
Another important decision was the adoption in the first reading of Draft Law No. 15056. It concerns amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption” in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
At first glance, this may look like a technical legal adjustment. Politically, however, it has a much broader meaning. For a country integrating into the European and transatlantic economic space, liability for bribery of foreign public officials is not a legal detail. It is part of the rules of a fair and transparent market.
The draft law provides for aligning the definition of a “foreign public official” with the terminology of the Convention, harmonising criminal-law measures concerning legal successors of legal entities, and introducing additional procedural mechanisms related to restrictions on the activities of legal entities.
It is also important that the draft law focuses on the duty of authorised persons of a legal entity to take measures to prevent corruption. This signals a gradual move from formal anti-corruption declarations towards a culture of corporate responsibility.
For international partners, it is important to see that Ukraine is not only declaring its commitment to anti-corruption policy, but is also adapting its criminal and procedural legislation to specific international obligations. This is a question of trust in the state, in business and in the future reconstruction process.
A parliamentary channel for investor protection
The Verkhovna Rada also established a Temporary Special Commission on the protection of investors’ rights. The relevant resolution is registered as No. 15219. According to the official announcement, the commission’s tasks include preparing legislative initiatives to protect investors’ rights, ensuring equal protection of the rights, interests and property of investment actors regardless of ownership form, and supporting international economic cooperation.
Halyna Yanchenko was elected Chair of the Temporary Special Commission, while Larysa Bilozir was elected Deputy Chair. Representatives of all parliamentary factions and groups were included in the commission.
The creation of this commission is a political signal to business. Investor protection is being moved into the space of parliamentary oversight and legislative initiative. This is critical for Ukraine, because post-war reconstruction cannot rely only on public funds or donor assistance. It will require private capital, risk insurance, clear rules and a real state response to violations of property rights.
At the same time, the existence of a commission does not solve the problem automatically. Its effectiveness will depend on whether it can move beyond general statements and produce practical legislative and oversight mechanisms: from analysing investment barriers to structured parliamentary cooperation with business associations, regions and international partners.
Customs reform shows where consensus is still missing
Against this background, the situation with Draft Law No. 12360 on amendments to the Customs Code of Ukraine regarding the assessment of the efficiency and performance of customs authorities was also revealing. According to roll-call voting data, the draft law did not receive sufficient support for adoption in the second reading and as a whole. It also did not receive enough votes to be sent for a repeated second reading.
This is an important detail for understanding the parliamentary day. The Verkhovna Rada supported decisions strengthening the human rights, anti-corruption and investment framework, but did not move forward with a separate customs reform package. For the economy and business, customs remains one of the key points of trust in the state. That is why any decision on the performance of customs authorities requires not only votes in the chamber, but also a sufficiently strong political and expert consensus.
Institutional reform is never a straight line. It consists both of decisions that are adopted and of issues that Parliament sends back into political debate. Such episodes show where resistance remains and where public policy still lacks a shared position.
What this means for communities and regions
For citizens, these decisions may seem distant from everyday problems. In reality, they are directly connected to the quality of life at the local level. A stronger Human Rights Commissioner means better protection for individuals in their interaction with the state. Anti-corruption adaptation means clearer rules for businesses working with international partners. Investor protection means more opportunities for communities to attract capital for reconstruction, infrastructure, jobs and local economic recovery.
For industrial and frontline regions, including the Kryvyi Rih region, investment confidence is especially important. Restoring enterprises, modernising infrastructure, supporting small and medium-sized businesses, creating jobs and cooperating with international partners require not only projects, but also guarantees that property rights and business rules will be protected.
Regional voice
Ruslan Shamrin, deputy of the Kryvyi Rih City Council and member of the Standing Commission of the Kryvyi Rih City Council on the implementation of the city development strategy and investments, emphasises that regions need parliamentary decisions to produce practical results, not only central-level political declarations. If the state strengthens human rights protection, anti-corruption rules and investment guarantees, communities should receive more trust, more opportunities for recovery and clearer rules for people and businesses on the ground.
The parliamentary session of 26 May was an example of how legislative work is gradually shaping the institutional architecture of wartime and post-war Ukraine. The update of the law on the Human Rights Commissioner, the anti-corruption adaptation to an international convention and the creation of a Temporary Special Commission on investor protection are different decisions. Yet they all work towards one goal: making the Ukrainian state more predictable, more accountable and more capable of recovery.
Ukraine cannot wait until the war is over to build modern institutions. They must be strengthened now — in Parliament, in Government, in courts, in communities and in the everyday interaction between the state, citizens and business.
