This article examines whether safety warnings can excuse or neutralize product defects under strict product liability. It addresses a persistent tension at the heart of modern product liability law: whether risk may be shifted to consumers through disclosure, or whether certain risks must remain with the producer irrespective of warning. The analysis proceeds from the premise that product liability is organized around defectiveness rather than fault. Within the European Union, defectiveness is determined by reference to the level of safety the public is entitled to expect, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including the product’s presentation. Safety warnings, therefore, form part of the defectiveness inquiry, but their precise legal function remains contested. To clarify this function, the article combines doctrinal analysis of European Union legislation and case law with comparative insights drawn from the United States, England, and Canada. Particular attention is paid to the tripartite distinction between manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure-to-warn defects, which, while not formally embedded in European Union law, provides an analytically useful framework. The main conclusion is that warnings cannot be considered a general basis for exemption from liability. They cannot cure manufacturing defects, as this would undermine the regime's strict character by replacing the right to a safe product with a mere right to be informed of risks. In the context of design defects, the role of warnings is more limited and conditional. Where a reasonable alternative design exists, a warning cannot substitute for a safer design. Only where risks are irreducible, and no safer design is feasible, may an adequate warning suffice to render the product non-defective. Even then, warnings remain an imperfect safety mechanism, constrained by their dependence on user attention and behaviour. The article concludes that warnings are a necessary but inherently limited tool of risk regulation. They inform the assessment of defectiveness and may affect the apportionment of responsibility, but they cannot legitimize avoidably unsafe products.
The article analyses judicial practice regarding the application of Art. 340 of the Customs Code of Ukraine, which governs legal relations concerning personal searches of individuals during customs control at Ukraine's customs border. The relevance of this study stems from the fact that personal searches, as an exceptional form of customs control, constitute interference with private life and may infringe the constitutional right to personal integrity, particularly given that the results of such searches may subsequently be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. The article provides a comparative analysis of the procedure governing personal searches under the Customs Code of Ukraine, personal searches under the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences, and searches conducted under the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The study presents the results of a comprehensive analysis of the legal positions adopted by the Supreme Court concerning the legal nature and grounds for conducting personal searches as an exceptional form of customs control authorised by a written decision of the head of the customs authority, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person crossing the customs border of Ukraine is concealing contraband or goods that violate customs regulations. Particular attention is devoted to the admissibility of evidence obtained during customs control, including personal search reports, as well as to the criteria used by courts to assess the legality and justification of personal searches, given that the sole statutory basis for conducting such searches is the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that a person is concealing prohibited items. As a result of the study, proposals to enhance legal certainty in the application of Art. 340 of the Customs Code of Ukraine were formulated.
The article is devoted to a topical issue in the context of Ukraine’s European integration, namely the modernization of legislative regulation of mechanisms for ensuring the capacity of local self-government. The relevance of the study is determined by the need to take into account European experience, in particular that of the Baltic states, where the concept of "capacity" is widely used in legal systems as a tool for enhancing efficiency and ensuring the proper functioning of local self-government. This approach is based on the full implementation of the provisions of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which establishes relevant standards. The article analyzes the doctrinal understanding of the essence of the concept of "capacity" and distinguishes it from related categories, in particular "actual ability." The current state of legal regulation of this concept in Ukraine and the specifics of its enshrinement in normative legal acts are examined. Considerable attention is paid to the analysis of the practices of the Baltic states as an example of effective ensuring the capacity of local self-government. The author proposes a definition of capacity as a socio-legal category that reflects the potential ability of municipal institutions and the system of local self-government as a whole to effectively exercise their powers, provided that the necessary resources and internal potential are available. Based on this approach, proposals for amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine are substantiated, aimed at strengthening the institutional, functional, and financial capacity of local self-government. It is determined that such changes should be based on the provisions of the European Charter of Local Self-Government and the best practices of the Baltic states.
The article examines the transformation of freedom of expression under private algorithmic governance of the public digital sphere. The relevance of the topic is that global online platforms increasingly act as de facto intermediaries for political communication, news exchange, documentation of war crimes, and civic mobilisation, while Ukrainian legislation lacks a comprehensive model for their procedural accountability. The purpose of the article is to identify the legal risks of algorithmic moderation for freedom of expression and to substantiate a regulatory model suitable for Ukraine in the context of war, information aggression, and European integration. The methodology is based on doctrinal, comparative legal, functional, and systemic methods, as well as on the analysis of legal and policy materials concerning the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, and Ukraine. The results show that the European Union model provides the most developed procedural safeguards; the American model preserves excessively broad private platform discretion; the British approach emphasises risk-oriented service safety; and the Taiwanese model demonstrates the effectiveness of social resilience and non-punitive coordination. The article substantiates the need for a hybrid model for Ukraine that combines reasoned moderation decisions, internal and independent appeals, systemic risk assessment, an institutional channel of communication with platforms, and rapid response to disinformation, without granting the state censorship powers. Further research should focus on the development of a special law on digital services and platform governance.
The relevance of the study is determined by transformations in the political systems of modern countries, which affect the characteristics of legal systems and lead to changes in the manifestations of democratic systems. Such changes are clearly evident in Latin American countries. Research into the influence of political factors on legal systems will help prevent the negative manifestations of such processes in Ukraine during its own institutional reform. The purpose of this study is to identify the political causes and factors that contribute to differences within homogeneous legal systems. The task is to analyse the political systems of Latin American countries, identify key factors influencing the differences between these systems, and characterise the various processes that led to the transformation of their legal and political systems. For this purpose, the following materials were used: monographs, collections of articles by researchers, assessments by leading experts in political processes, annual classifications of countries according to the democracy index formed by The Economist, etc. The authors used a variety of scientific methods: philosophical (dialectical and hermeneutic), general scientific (systemic, structural-complex, content analysis, statistical-mathematical methods), and theoretical-legal methods (comparative-legal, historical-legal, formal-legal, legal forecasting method), and applied many principles, methods, and techniques of scientific research (principles of determinism and retrospective analysis, objectivity, historicism, classification, dogmatic-legal approach, principles of analogy, and logical analysis). The results of the study highlighted the peculiarities of different political systems in the Latin American region. The authors concluded that the legal systems of Latin American countries represent different groups of political systems. To divide into such groups, various factors should be taken into account, including the rule of law, democratic accountability of state bodies, and various indicators of democracy. Further research could explore the impact of various political processes and reforms on the characteristics of individual national legal systems in Latin American countries.
