The activities of parliamentarians are always subject to assessment and analysis, in particular from a moral point of view are analysed in the article. Rightness or wrongness, good or evil are the basis for assessing the work of parliament, formulated by society opinion, which, on the basis of elections, has given deputies the authority to implement state policy and represent the interests of society. The question of whether deputies act in accordance with moral principles socially agreed upon as mandatory, or whether they violate these principles, is a key issue in the field of deputy ethics and discipline. The ethics of responsibility means that a deputy takes moral responsibility for the consequences of his actions. The basis of deputy ethics are intentions and values and the consequences of political actions and decisions made. It has been determined that the introduction and strengthening of disciplinary liability for deputies of parliament is aimed, first of all, at ensuring compliance by persons who are elected representatives of the people with the rules of conduct and professional ethics. The main reasons for establishing disciplinary liability for parliamentarians are the following: control over the performance of the duties of a deputy, in accordance with the principles of parliamentary ethics; elimination of factors of improper behavior of a deputy; protection of the authority of parliament; filling gaps in the current legislation, since the disciplinary liability of deputies is not always in the legal plane, but is reprehensible in view of the norms of parliamentary ethics. The behavior of a deputy of parliament must comply with the following principles: disinterestedness, transparency, reliability, concern for the reputation of parliament, responsibility. A member of parliament must be guided by public interests and may not use his position to obtain benefits for himself or other person, must not accept benefits that may affect his activities as a member of parliament, and when making decisions, a deputy must choose a method that will meet the public interest and will be accessible to the public. It has been established that as of May 2026, there are no unified standards of deputy ethics enshrined in current legislation, although several draft laws establishing norms of ethical behavior of people’s deputies and defining the limits of disciplinary liability for their violation have been registered in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
After the Law of Ukraine «On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Simplifying Pre-Trial Investigation of Certain Categories of Criminal Misdemeanours» No. 2617-VIII dated 11/22/2018 came into force and the inquiry agency began their work, which carry out pre-trial investigation of criminal misdemeanours in accordance with the amendments, the procedural activities of the prosecutor as a procedural manager and the forms of his interaction with the above-mentioned units during the conduct of a pre-trial investigation in the form of an inquiry became relevant. This article examines the features of the prosecutor’s procedural activities in the pre-trial investigation of criminal misdemeanours, as well as the basic principles of conducting a pre-trial investigation in the form of an inquiry and the role of the prosecutor as a procedural manager. The powers of the prosecutor in supervising compliance with laws during an inquiry in the form of procedural management are also analyzed. Practical issues related to the features of conducting a pre-trial investigation in the form of an inquiry and the powers of the prosecutor as a procedural manager in such criminal proceedings are identified. The interaction between the prosecutor and the inquiry units during the pre-trial investigation of criminal misdemeanours is described. The article conducts a systematic analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of Ukraine), the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the CPC of Ukraine), the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (hereinafter referred to as the CPA), the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office” (hereinafter referred to as the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office”) and the Order of the Prosecutor General’s Office dated 30.09.2021 No. 309 “On the Organization of the Activities of Prosecutors in Criminal Proceedings” (hereinafter referred to as the Order of the Prosecutor General’s Office No. 309 “On the Organization of the Activities of Prosecutors in Criminal Proceedings”). The article also examines law enforcement, in particular, judicial practice on the features of the role of the prosecutor in the pre-trial investigation of criminal misdemeanours by inquiry bodies, which reveals positive and negative features. The article also analyzes many institutions of modern criminal procedural law. In particular, the institution of procedural management and the institution of inquiry in close relationship with other institutions of criminal process and with other branches of Ukrainian legislation.
This article examines recent legislative changes in the field of hazardous waste management related to the repeal of the Law of Ukraine «On Waste» and the adoption of the new Law of Ukraine «On Waste Management», driven by Ukraine’s European integration processes. The study reveals the significant relevance of licensing among business entities, given the number of licenses obtained and procedures initiated over the past three years — 2023, 2024, and 2025. The study examined a number of scientific works focusing on the field of waste management and found that, from the perspective of applying the principle of good faith in administrative procedures, scholars in the field of waste management licensing have not paid attention to this issue. The research methods used in this manuscript include general scientific methods of analysis, synthesis, and generalization, as well as a specialized legal method — the formal-legal method. The work also analyzes a number of administrative acts (decisions) adopted in the field of hazardous waste management licensing and summarizes the grounds most frequently cited by the licensing authority when making decisions to refuse the issuance of licenses. It is substantiated that the adoption of negative decisions by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine during 2024 was systematic in nature; administrative acts were largely adopted in violation of the principle of good faith in administrative proceedings, which was confirmed, among other things, by the decision and conclusions of the State Regulatory Service of Ukraine. As a result, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine revoked the registration of the order issued by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine regarding the verification of the material and technical capacity of a license applicant in the field of hazardous waste management. It was concluded that a violation of the principle of good faith in administrative proceedings during the licensing process results in the business entity losing access to the market for the relevant services. It was proposed that the successor to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine — the Ministry of Economy, Environment, and Agriculture of Ukraine — take into account the need to adhere to the principles of administrative procedure and the principle of good faith in particular.
The article examines the impact of global sea-level rise on the delimitation of maritime zones and the preservation of state sovereignty in the context of current rules of international maritime law. The article highlights the key international legal instruments and events that constitute the international community’s response to this problem. In particular, the author examines the “Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea-Level Rise”, adopted by the members of the Pacific Islands Forum on 6 August 2021, in which the participating states drew attention to a systemic gap in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was premised on the assumption of stable coastlines, and affirmed their intention to maintain the current maritime delimitation regime despite rising sea levels. The author also examines the “Falepili Union”, a bilateral treaty concluded between Australia and Tuvalu on 9 November 2023, which affirmed the continuation of Tuvalu’s statehood and sovereignty notwithstanding the consequences of climate change. In addition, the author pays attention to domestic legal acts of states aimed at enshrining the principle of the permanence of a state’s baseline coordinates regardless of any regression of the low-water line or changes in the geographical features of the coastline caused by rising sea levels. Particular attention is also given to an analysis of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on normal and straight baselines, as well as UN General Assembly Resolution 77/276 of 29 March 2023, on the basis of which the International Court of Justice was authorised to deliver an advisory opinion on the obligations of states in the field of climate change. The article provides a detailed analysis of key ICJ advisory opinion delivered on 23 July 2025. It includes the confirmation that the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea do not require states to update their maritime charts or lists of baseline coordinates in connection with rising sea levels, and the establishment of the concept of a «strong presumption» in favour of the continuity of statehood in light of the disappearance of one of a state’s constituent elements. The author examines the relationship between these findings and the criteria of statehood set out in Article 1 of the 1933 Convention on the rights and duties of states.
The article substantiates a new authorial integrative doctrine of criminal procedural proof in the mixed model of criminal procedure of Ukraine. The methodological basis of the study is the author’s previous concept of criminal procedural proof, in which proof was considered as cognitive-practical, legal and logical-intellectual activity aimed at obtaining and using evidence. It is argued that the current state of criminal procedure, the development of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the digitalisation of evidentiary activity, the use of OSINT, multisensor data, results of covert investigative actions, materials of operational-search activity, as well as the specific features of criminal proceedings under martial law require a transition from a conceptual model of proof to a coherent authorial integrative doctrine. The article substantiates that criminal procedural proof cannot be reduced only to the collection, verification and evaluation of evidence. It should be understood as a normatively regulated, adversarially organised, judicially controlled, standard-oriented, procedurally integral and technologically supported activity involving the obtaining, procedural recording, disclosure, examination, verification, evaluation and use of evidence in order to form an admissible, reliable, sufficient, adversarially tested and fair factual basis for a criminal procedural decision. The article reveals the importance of the mixed model of criminal procedure of Ukraine as a procedural environment of proof, within which pre-trial investigation, judicial control and trial have different but interrelated evidentiary purposes. A differentiated understanding of the subjects of proof, subjects of evidentiary interest, subjects of obtaining and submitting evidence, subjects of judicial control, examination and evaluation of evidence is proposed. Particular attention is paid to standards of proof, admissibility of evidence, procedural integrity, the digital form of evidence, OSINT, multisensor data, covert investigative actions and operational-search materials. The article concludes that the new authorial integrative doctrine of criminal procedural proof should become a methodological basis for the further development of the law of evidence of Ukraine, improvement of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and formation of a procedurally integral, digitally verifiable and judicially controlled model of proof in the mixed criminal procedure of Ukraine.
