JUSTIFIED RISK AS A LEGAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION CHALLENGE: A THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

This article examines justified risk (Article 42 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) as a pressing interdisciplinary issue at the intersection of law, socio-psychological analysis, and public administration. The study delineates the boundaries between justified risk, the state of necessity, and necessary defense under conditions of martial law. The paper introduces the concept of “publicly documented risk,” developed through the integration of the criminal law doctrine of justified risk, insights derived from evidentiary practice in cases excluding criminal unlawfulness of officials’ actions, and contemporary approaches to the psychology of decision-making under risk. The actions of civil servants within military-civil administrations and police officers of the “White Angel” unit (including evacuation operations) are examined as illustrative cases of risk-based decision-making. Particular attention is paid to factors complicating exemption from criminal liability for decision-makers operating under risk, especially in situations involving loss of life, significant harm, or serious public consequences. The study argues for a broader use of expert knowledge and methodological tools of psychological risk assessment in judicial decision-making concerning criminal liability in risk-related cases. The proposed theoretical framework and practical algorithms aim to reduce criminal law exposure for public officials and law enforcement personnel while ensuring the effective protection of civilian populations.
It is concluded that Scholars and practitioners in public administration, legislators, judges, and forensic psychology experts should contribute to strengthening the doctrinal foundations of justified risk in wartime conditions and to advancing the use of forensic psychological assessment methodologies. It is essential to ensure legal recognition of the role of psychological mechanisms in decision-making under extreme conditions, particularly in cases involving tragic outcomes and mass casualties. Greater clarity is also required in the legal qualification of actions potentially exceeding official authority when such actions are subject to judicial review.