PUNISHABILITY IN RADIOECOLOGICAL SAFETY: CASE LAW FROM UKRAINE
1. Introduction. – 2. Determinations of the Subject and Period of Research. – 3. Criminological Analysis of Criminality in the Field of Radioecological Safety. – 4. Analysis of the State of Criminal Law-Enforcement Penalization of Criminal Offences in the Field of Radioecological Safety. – 5. Main Indicators of Convictions in the Field of Radio-Environmental Safety (by Types of Punishment and Types of Criminal Offenses). – 6. Conclusions.
Background:
The dangerous nature of illegal activities in the field of radioecological safety underscores the pressing need to prevent and deter the negative consequences of using nuclear and radioactive materials, to avert the threat of their occurrence, and to counteract criminal practices of this category, in particular through their criminalisation. This article aims to provide suitable analytical support for such activity, focusing primarily on identifying the most appropriate framework for punishability that aligns with the nature and degree of social danger posed by these actions and their legal consequences.
Methods:
A dialectical method of cognition was employed to investigate and substantiate the fundamental concepts examined in this article. Statistical methods were utilised to analyse judicial statistics for this category of cases and calculate the relevant indicators. A sociological method was applied to conduct a content analysis and generalise judicial practice. The logical-legal method was used to develop and substantiate ways to improve the sanctions under examination.
Results and conclusions:
Based on official statistical data (Prosecutor General’s Office and the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine), a long-term criminological analysis of the studied crimes was conducted. It determined absolute, average, and relative values, as well as indicators reflecting the ratio between recorded criminal offences, individuals whose court decisions entered into legal force during the reporting period, and convicted persons—both overall and for specific types of the studied offences. Key indicators of criminal conviction were determined, including conviction rates and structural composition, categorised by type of punishment and criminal offence. The research results revealed a significant gap between the types and amount of punishments provided for by the sanctions of the criminal-legal provisions under study and the factual punishability.
The dangerous nature of illegal activities in the field of radioecological safety underscores the pressing need to prevent and deter the negative consequences of using nuclear and radioactive materials, to avert the threat of their occurrence, and to counteract criminal practices of this category, in particular through their criminalisation. This article aims to provide suitable analytical support for such activity, focusing primarily on identifying the most appropriate framework for punishability that aligns with the nature and degree of social danger posed by these actions and their legal consequences.
Methods:
A dialectical method of cognition was employed to investigate and substantiate the fundamental concepts examined in this article. Statistical methods were utilised to analyse judicial statistics for this category of cases and calculate the relevant indicators. A sociological method was applied to conduct a content analysis and generalise judicial practice. The logical-legal method was used to develop and substantiate ways to improve the sanctions under examination.
Results and conclusions:
Based on official statistical data (Prosecutor General’s Office and the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine), a long-term criminological analysis of the studied crimes was conducted. It determined absolute, average, and relative values, as well as indicators reflecting the ratio between recorded criminal offences, individuals whose court decisions entered into legal force during the reporting period, and convicted persons—both overall and for specific types of the studied offences. Key indicators of criminal conviction were determined, including conviction rates and structural composition, categorised by type of punishment and criminal offence. The research results revealed a significant gap between the types and amount of punishments provided for by the sanctions of the criminal-legal provisions under study and the factual punishability.
Abstract
Background:
The dangerous nature of illegal activities in the field of radioecological safety underscores the pressing need to prevent and deter the negative consequences of using nuclear and radioactive materials, to avert the threat of their occurrence, and to counteract criminal practices of this category, in particular through their criminalisation. This article aims to provide suitable analytical support for such activity, focusing primarily on identifying the most appropriate framework for punishability that aligns with the nature and degree of social danger posed by these actions and their legal consequences.
Methods:
A dialectical method of cognition was employed to investigate and substantiate the fundamental concepts examined in this article. Statistical methods were utilised to analyse judicial statistics for this category of cases and calculate the relevant indicators. A sociological method was applied to conduct a content analysis and generalise judicial practice. The logical-legal method was used to develop and substantiate ways to improve the sanctions under examination.
Results and conclusions:
Based on official statistical data (Prosecutor General’s Office and the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine), a long-term criminological analysis of the studied crimes was conducted. It determined absolute, average, and relative values, as well as indicators reflecting the ratio between recorded criminal offences, individuals whose court decisions entered into legal force during the reporting period, and convicted persons—both overall and for specific types of the studied offences. Key indicators of criminal conviction were determined, including conviction rates and structural composition, categorised by type of punishment and criminal offence. The research results revealed a significant gap between the types and amount of punishments provided for by the sanctions of the criminal-legal provisions under study and the factual punishability.
The dangerous nature of illegal activities in the field of radioecological safety underscores the pressing need to prevent and deter the negative consequences of using nuclear and radioactive materials, to avert the threat of their occurrence, and to counteract criminal practices of this category, in particular through their criminalisation. This article aims to provide suitable analytical support for such activity, focusing primarily on identifying the most appropriate framework for punishability that aligns with the nature and degree of social danger posed by these actions and their legal consequences.
Methods:
A dialectical method of cognition was employed to investigate and substantiate the fundamental concepts examined in this article. Statistical methods were utilised to analyse judicial statistics for this category of cases and calculate the relevant indicators. A sociological method was applied to conduct a content analysis and generalise judicial practice. The logical-legal method was used to develop and substantiate ways to improve the sanctions under examination.
Results and conclusions:
Based on official statistical data (Prosecutor General’s Office and the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine), a long-term criminological analysis of the studied crimes was conducted. It determined absolute, average, and relative values, as well as indicators reflecting the ratio between recorded criminal offences, individuals whose court decisions entered into legal force during the reporting period, and convicted persons—both overall and for specific types of the studied offences. Key indicators of criminal conviction were determined, including conviction rates and structural composition, categorised by type of punishment and criminal offence. The research results revealed a significant gap between the types and amount of punishments provided for by the sanctions of the criminal-legal provisions under study and the factual punishability.
About Authors
Anastasiia Ternavska
Cand. of Legal Science (PhD in Law), Department for Criminal Law, Criminology and Judicial System Issues, V.M. Koretsky Institute of State and Law of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
anastasiia.ternavskaya@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2624-7645
Corresponding author, responsible for conceptualization, methodology, data collection, investigation and writing – original draft.
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The author declares that her opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Copyright: © 2025 Anastasiia Ternavska. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Cand. of Legal Science (PhD in Law), Department for Criminal Law, Criminology and Judicial System Issues, V.M. Koretsky Institute of State and Law of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
anastasiia.ternavskaya@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2624-7645
Corresponding author, responsible for conceptualization, methodology, data collection, investigation and writing – original draft.
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The author declares that her opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Copyright: © 2025 Anastasiia Ternavska. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
References
1. Babanly R, Punishment in Ukraine: Theoretical and Applied Principles (Desna Polihraf 2019) 352.
2. Balobanova DO, ‘Dynamics of the Criminal Law of Ukraine (Theoretical and Applied Research)’ (DPhil (Law) thesis, National University “Odesa Law Academy” 2021).
3. Fris PL, Criminal Law Policy of the Ukrainian State: Theoretical, Historical and Legal Problems (Atika 2005).
4. Gutorova NO and Ponomarenko YuA, ‘The Penalization of Crimes as Way of Criminal and Legal Policy' (2013) 1 Herald of the Association of Criminal Law of Ukraine 32.
5. Knyzhenko O, ‘Penalization of Criminal Offenses: Prospects for Improvement’ (2013) 7 Law of Ukraine 291.
6. Melnyk PV, ‘Amendments and Supplements to Chapter VIII of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: Penalization or Depenalization?’ (2013) 2(6-1) Scientific herald of International Humanitarian University: Series Jurisprudence 41.
7. Mitrofanov AA, ‘General Ways of the Policy of Criminal Law in Ukraine: Forming and Realization’ (PhD (Law) thesis, VM Koretsky Institute of State and Law of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 2005).
8. Mozol S, Polishchuk H and Ternavska A, ‘Perspectives for the Imposition of Individual Types of Punishment in Ukraine’ (2021) 9 Entrepreneurship, Management and Law 130, doi:10.32849/2663-5313/2021.9.19.
9. Nazymko YeS, ‘General Overview of Political and Legal Processes of Establishment of the Measure of Punishment in Criminal Law Sanctions’ (2012) 1 Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine 67.
10. Orlovska NA, ‘The Sanction of Criminal Law Norms: Fundamentals and Principles of Construction’ (DPhil (Law) thesis, National University “Odesa Law Academy” 2012).
11. Pavlyk LV, ‘Differentiation of the Criminal Responsibility, Punishment and Implementation of Punishment: Features of the Concepts Delimitation’ (2015) 2 Scientific Journal of Lviv State University of Internal Affairs: Legal series 256
12. Ternavska AА, ‘Doctrinal Approaches to the Systematization of Criminal Offenses in the Field of Radioecological Safety’ (2024) 31(1) Bulletin of Criminological Association of Ukraine 87, doi:10.32631/vca.2024.1.06.
13. Turlova Yu and others, ‘Criminological Analysis of Crimes in the Field of Nuclear and Radiation Safety’ (2024) 1 Nuclear and Radiation Safety 9, doi:10.32918/ nrs.2024.1(101).01.
2. Balobanova DO, ‘Dynamics of the Criminal Law of Ukraine (Theoretical and Applied Research)’ (DPhil (Law) thesis, National University “Odesa Law Academy” 2021).
3. Fris PL, Criminal Law Policy of the Ukrainian State: Theoretical, Historical and Legal Problems (Atika 2005).
4. Gutorova NO and Ponomarenko YuA, ‘The Penalization of Crimes as Way of Criminal and Legal Policy' (2013) 1 Herald of the Association of Criminal Law of Ukraine 32.
5. Knyzhenko O, ‘Penalization of Criminal Offenses: Prospects for Improvement’ (2013) 7 Law of Ukraine 291.
6. Melnyk PV, ‘Amendments and Supplements to Chapter VIII of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: Penalization or Depenalization?’ (2013) 2(6-1) Scientific herald of International Humanitarian University: Series Jurisprudence 41.
7. Mitrofanov AA, ‘General Ways of the Policy of Criminal Law in Ukraine: Forming and Realization’ (PhD (Law) thesis, VM Koretsky Institute of State and Law of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 2005).
8. Mozol S, Polishchuk H and Ternavska A, ‘Perspectives for the Imposition of Individual Types of Punishment in Ukraine’ (2021) 9 Entrepreneurship, Management and Law 130, doi:10.32849/2663-5313/2021.9.19.
9. Nazymko YeS, ‘General Overview of Political and Legal Processes of Establishment of the Measure of Punishment in Criminal Law Sanctions’ (2012) 1 Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine 67.
10. Orlovska NA, ‘The Sanction of Criminal Law Norms: Fundamentals and Principles of Construction’ (DPhil (Law) thesis, National University “Odesa Law Academy” 2012).
11. Pavlyk LV, ‘Differentiation of the Criminal Responsibility, Punishment and Implementation of Punishment: Features of the Concepts Delimitation’ (2015) 2 Scientific Journal of Lviv State University of Internal Affairs: Legal series 256
12. Ternavska AА, ‘Doctrinal Approaches to the Systematization of Criminal Offenses in the Field of Radioecological Safety’ (2024) 31(1) Bulletin of Criminological Association of Ukraine 87, doi:10.32631/vca.2024.1.06.
13. Turlova Yu and others, ‘Criminological Analysis of Crimes in the Field of Nuclear and Radiation Safety’ (2024) 1 Nuclear and Radiation Safety 9, doi:10.32918/ nrs.2024.1(101).01.
Reviews for article
Add a Review
Publication history
-
Date of submission: 12 Nov 2024
Date of acceptance: 24 Jan 2025
Date of publication: 15 Feb 2025
Whether the manuscript was fast tracked? - No
Number of reviewer report submitted in first round: 2 reports
Number of revision rounds: 1 round, revised version submitted 21 Jan 2025Technical tools were used in the editorial process:
Plagiarism checks - Turnitin from iThenticate https://www.turnitin.com/products/ithenticate/ Scholastica for Peer Review https://scholasticahq.com/law-reviews
How to cite it?
-
Ternavska A, ‘Punishability in Radioecological Safety: The Ukrainian Example of Case Law’ (2025) 8(1) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 491-507 <https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.1-c000117>
