Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026), pages 280–286.

DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2026-17-280-286

Gatseliuk V. O.
Criminalization of socially dangerous acts as an ultima ratio in the criminal policy paradigm

In order to determine the principles of interpreting criminalization as a last resort (ultima ratio), the article examines the content of criminalization, taking into account the balance of its positive and negative consequences, precisely viewing criminal policy as a component of public policy.

It is noted that the failure to apply other possible means of regulation instead of criminalization is a flaw in governance, and in view of this, it is proposed to study criminalization not as a separate phenomenon, but as a component of public policy measures and criminal policy as its subsystem.

Criminalization is considered as a last resort, since it, like any manifestation of public policy, has its price and criminalization leads to a number of consequences, some of which are negative. It is emphasized that the practice of lawmaking is drifting towards an eclectic set of social control instruments as a result of a chaotic response to new challenges post factum.

An example is given with criticism of the criminalization of begging. It is noted that, just as with begging, it is worth considering the practice and consequences of criminalizing collaborationist activities. Namely, to analyze the amount of resources that the state invests in investigating and bringing to justice in court persons who were forced to collaborate with the aggressor. Given that such behavior is undesirable and harmful, it is not obvious that it is appropriate to counteract the entire spectrum of collaborationist practices (especially in circumstances that forced a person to choose cooperation with the occupation administration as a means of livelihood) precisely through criminalization, and not through other instruments of social responsibility, for example, restrictions on holding certain types of public service, where a high degree of loyalty to the state is expected. An example is the Unified Indicators for Assessing Integrity, which create legal grounds for excluding individuals from judicial positions, and which establish that an ideal judicial candidate is one who has demonstrated civic consciousness, patriotism, respect for Ukrainian statehood and the constitutional order, has not committed actions indicating support (justification) of aggressive actions of other states against Ukraine, as well as one who has not temporarily visited a state/states that is/are in an armed conflict (war) with Ukraine or has facilitated the commission of armed aggression against Ukraine or does not recognize/recognize the territorial integrity of Ukraine or the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine and/or the territories of the aggressor state without urgent need, i.e. in the absence of critical and/or urgent vital circumstances that cannot be eliminated in any other way than by personal presence in these territories, despite the threat to his/her own safety, that of their relatives, and the national security of Ukraine.

It is concluded that such a system of response measures (from professional restrictions to criminalization) will look like a more effective and balanced line for preventing relevant deviations in the future, and not only for cases of collaborative activity, but also for a wide range of types of behavior that do not fall under absolute “Biblical” prohibitions, although in situations with theft, human-centeredness and the concept of human rights as the basis of public policy allow for a range of interpretations.

Keywords: criminalization of socially dangerous acts, criminal policy, public policy, criminal liability for begging, criminal liability for collaborative activities.

References

1. Naden V. Teoretychni osnovy kryminalno-pravovoho rehuliuvannia v Ukraini. Kharkiv, 2012. 272 s. (in Ukr.).
2. Fris L. Kryminalizatsiia i dekryminalizatsiia u kryminalno-pravovii politytsi. Visnyk Asotsiatsii kryminalnoho prava Ukrainy. 2014. № 1 (2) (in Ukr.).
3. Navrotskyi O. Z profesorskoi shukhliady. Ivano-Frankivsk, 2016. 705 s. (in Ukr.).
4. Muzyka A. A. Problema kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti: bezpidstavnist vstanovlennia chy skasuvannia, nezakonnist prytiahnennia chy zvilnennia, pravomirnist vykliuchennia. Aktualni problemy kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti: materialy mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf., 10–11 zhovt. 2013 r. Kharkiv, 2013. 848 s. (in Ukr.).
5. Hryshchuk K. Filosofsko-pravove rozuminnia vidpovidalnosti liudyny. Khmelnytskyi, 2012. 735 s. (in Ukr.).
6. Balobanova O. Dynamika kryminalnoho prava: doktrynalni polozhennia. Odesa, 2020. 358 s. (in Ukr.).
7. Tatsii V. Ia. Stabilnist ta dynamizm kryminalnoho zakonodavstva Ukrainy yak zaporuka yoho yakosti ta efektyvnosti. Osnovni napriamy rozvytku kryminalnoho prava ta shliakhy vdoskonalennia zakonodavstva Ukrainy pro kryminalnu vidpovidalnist: materialy mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf., 11–12 zhovt. 2012 r. Kharkiv, 2012. 632 s. (in Ukr.).
8. John C. Coffee Jr., Does “Unlawful” Mean “Criminal”?: Reflections on the Disappearing Tort / Crime Distinction in American Law, 71 B. U. L. Rev. 193 (1991). P. 194.
9. Husak The criminal law as last resort. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 24, Issue 2, SUMMER, Pages 207–235.
10. Rozovskyi B. H. «Rvanыe» normы uholovnoho kodeksa. URL: https://doi.org/10.33766/2524-0323.95.287-304 (in Rus.).
11. Usatyi H. O. Konfliktni kryminalno-pravovi vidnosyny. Aktualni problemy kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti: materialy mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf., 10–11 zhovt. 2013 r. Kharkiv, 2013. 848 s. (in Ukr.).
12. Ponomarenko Yu. A. Zahalna teoriia vyznachennia karanosti kryminalnykh pravoporushen. Kharkiv, 2020. 720 s. (in Ukr.).
13. Andrushko P. Osoblyvosti kryminalno-pravovoi polityky v Ukraini pislia nabrannia chynnosti KK Ukrainy 2001 roku. Osnovni napriamy rozvytku kryminalnoho prava ta shliakhy vdoskonalennia zakonodavstva Ukrainy pro kryminalnu vidpovidalnist: materialy mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf., 11–12 zhovt. 2012 r. Kharkiv, 2012. 632 s. (in Ukr.).
14. Lacatus Switzerland. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-207695
15. Vodiannikov Iu. Vid caveat dominus do ultima ratio: demokratiia i konstytutsiini pryntsypy kryminalizatsii. Vstupne slovo. Kryminalizatsiia suspilno nebezpechnykh diian protiahom dii Kryminalnoho kodeksu Ukrainy 2001 roku: ostanni siuzhety na foni zahalnoi palitry zakonodavchykh rishen. Kyiv: VAITE, 2021. 228 s. (in Ukr.).
16. Pro zatverdzhennia Yedynykh pokaznykiv dlia otsinky dobrochesnosti ta profesiinoi etyky suddi (kandydata na posadu suddi): Rishennia Vyshchoi rady pravosuddia vid 12.2024 r. № 3659/0/15-24. URL: https://hcj.gov.ua/doc/doc/49121  (in Ukr.).

Дата першого надходження рукопису до видання: 27.01.2026
Дата прийнятого до друку рукопису після рецензування: 09.04.2026
Дата публікації: 30.04.2026