Autonomy as a form of state sovereignty of the Ukrainian Cossack State (late XVII-XVIII centuries)

Abstract

The study of Ukrainian statehood’s history is important for understanding the continuity of state formation in Ukraine and supporting the nation-state revival. It is crucial to examine Cossack statehood in the mid-17th century, specifically its foreign policy and international situation. The purpose of this article is to study the main directions of activity of the hetman administration of the Ukrainian Cossack state in the XVII-XVIII centuries, focusing on protecting the sovereignty of the Ukrainian government in domestic and foreign policy. The article’s methodological basis is rooted in general scientific principles and methods of cognition. These principles aim to provide an objective and comprehensive understanding of facts, events, and phenomena. The research follows the principles of historicism and objectivism, which prioritize factual material and avoid bias. General and specific historical methods of scientific research were employed in investigating the topic. These methods included: analysis and synthesis when examining sources and literature, periodization for organizing the research, problem-historical approach for presenting historical material, and comparative-historical analysis for comparing similar indicators and facts within the same historical context. Result: The elite’s perception of itself as a subject of socio-political life led to the creation of contractual orientations and the demand for mutual obligations to be recognized. This was evident in the requirements of the monarch’s oath to fulfill the contract. The Ukrainian political elite justified their intentions and actions towards protectorates based on the principle of contract, showing their willingness to fulfill contractual obligations on an equal footing. Conclusions: The legal subjectivity of the Ukrainian political elite has been reduced to post-sovereign autonomism due to increasing foreign policy imperial pressure. The typological characteristics of this are the following: 1) recognition of the supreme power of the protector-monarch; 2) refusal to regulate social relations by the laws of the protector’s country; 3) categorical denial of the right of the political elite of the monarch-protector’s country to perform any managerial functions within the political system of the Hetmanship.