THE "LEGAL DILEMMA" PHENOMENON AND ENSURING NATIONAL SECURITY IN UKRAINE

Abstract

This article explores the problematic aspects of the "legal dilemma" phenomenon in the context of ensuring Ukraine's national security. It focuses on the state's selection of sufficient and necessary means and methods to adequately ensure its own security. The focus is on the specific features of the state's repressive mechanism in the current geopolitical reality, whose effectiveness lies not so much in the effective implementation of its functions to ensure the foundations of national security, but rather in the rational selection of a set of legal instruments for such implementation. It is noted that in a rapidly evolving environment and emerging emergencies, the state may face a difficult choice: either ensure its security by sacrificing the constitutional tenets of protecting democratic rights and freedoms, or not violate such rights and freedoms, thereby calling into question its very existence. It is argued that, in the presence of real threats to the foundations of national security, it is extremely difficult to ensure an adequate level of such security without the concomitant rapid localization (restriction) of a number of constitutional and legal priorities. A detailed analysis of existing international practices for ensuring national security through the application of not only criminal law but also constitutional and legal responses is conducted, comparing them and establishing the advantages and disadvantages of each. The specificity and necessity of proportionately applying criminal law responses to emerging threats to national interests in the context of accompanying violations of protected rights are substantiated. A necessary and sufficient set of conditions is substantiated under which the state has a real opportunity to make the appropriate choice in the current dilemma, thereby establishing the conditions for the legitimacy of such a choice.