CONCEPTUALIZATION OF LEGAL GUARANTEES IN UKRAINIAN JURISPRUDENCE: A DOCTRINAL APPROACH

Abstract

The relevance of researching the institute of legal guarantees under the conditions of the modern development of Ukrainian statehood is substantiated. It is noted that the presence of doctrinal discrepancies and terminological ambiguity in defining the essence and operating mechanism of guarantees weaken their practical potential, turning real protection instruments into declarative constructs. In view of this, the purpose of the scientific paper is identified as revealing the conceptual foundations of legal guarantees, differentiating the theoretical approaches to their interpretation, and defining the models of state functioning of these guarantees in the context of ensuring a balance between private and public interests. The expediency of using the term «legal guarantees» (as compared to the term «juridical guarantees») is substantiated as a broader concept at the doctrinal level. The conceptualization of a legal guarantee is carried out, suggesting its consideration not as a static system of conditions, but as a dynamic mechanism that ensures the transition from normative abstraction to a real social state. It is proved that legal duties are also subject to legal guaranteeing. Three key conceptual paradigms of understanding legal guarantees in modern legal science are identified, namely: the normative approach, where guarantees appear as formally defined legally binding conditions for the realization of rights and the fulfillment of duties; the activityprocedural approach, which shifts the emphasis to specific actions and acts of the guaranteeing subjects; and the formalprocedural approach, which focuses on legal remedies, procedural forms, and enforcement measures. Additional theoretical and methodological approaches are outlined, including general theoretical, functional-sectoral, systemic-structural, instrumental-supportive, and functional-balancing approaches. It is established that the practical implementation of these approaches forms two distinct praxeological models of state activity: «comprehensive custody», where a private individual acts predominantly as a passive object of unilateral managerial influence, and the efficiency of guarantees entirely depends on the activity of the state apparatus and the economic capacity of the state, and «partner guaranteeing». The second model is based on the recognition of the active subjectivity of private individuals and the development of a systemic dialogue between the state and private entities, which allows for the most complete consideration of private and public interests