The article emphasizes that effective legislation, as a result of law-making activity, is most likely to be capable of timely identifying threats – primarily of a hybrid nature – preventing and countering them, as well as minimizing their negative impact.

The aim of the research is to justify directions for enhancing the preventive function of lawmaking activity, taking into account methodological approaches in European Union law to the identification of hybrid threats.

The position is upheld that the effectiveness of a legal norm should be considered through the lens of a number of legal principles that have gained recognition in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the EU, national systems of courts of general jurisdiction, and constitutional justice bodies.

It is established that national law-making practice does not fully utilize the potential of ex ante (at the impact assessment stage) and ex post (at the legal monitoring stage) legislative evaluation tools, which, according to the European Commission for Democracy through Law, are an indicator of compliance with the rule of law and are embedded in EU legislative drafting practice.

It is argued that law-making carried out with improper adherence to the rule of law and its constituent elements – especially with disregard for the principle of proportionality, which is crucial at the impact assessment stage – creates preconditions for the adoption of ineffective legislation.

It is further argued that neglecting legal monitoring leads to a situation in the law-making process where no legislative revision takes place, resulting in the retention of ineffective normative legal acts within the legal system of the state.

The article substantiates that ineffective legislation becomes vulnerable to various threats, particularly hybrid threats. As EU law-making practice demonstrates, the identification of impacts on certain groups of social relations occurs already at the stage of impact assessment of a legislative proposal through the use of checklists. Responses to these questions allow the development of approaches to prevent potential threats.

It is asserted that integrating EU legislative drafting methods and tools into national law-making processes will enhance the preventive function of such activities. This will help prevent decisions, actions, and/or inactions by law-making actors that may introduce vulnerabilities into the legal system of the state, thus increasing its susceptibility to the negative effects of various threats, including hybrid ones.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Dawson M, de Witte F, EU Law and Governance (Cambridge University Press 2022).

2. Sideri K, Law’s Practical Wisdom: The Theory and Practice of Law Making in New Governance Structures in the European Union (Routledge 2007).

3. Zander M, The Law-Making Process (Eighth edition Bloomsbury 2020).

4. Bratsuk I, Teoretyko-pravovi zasady implementatsii prava Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu v natsionalne pravo derzhav-chleniv (M M Mykiievych (ed)) (LNU imeni Ivana Franka, 2016) (in Ukrainian).

5. Malolitneva V, Hospodarsko-pravovyi instytut publichnykh zakupivel (Instytut ekonomikopravovykh doslidzhen imeni V. K. Mamutova Natsionalnoi akademii nauk Ukrainy 2020) (in Ukrainian).

6. Parkhomenko N, Paradyhma pravovoho rehuliuvannia v Ukraini: zmistovo-instrumentalni vymiry (Parlamentske vydavnytstvo 2023) (in Ukrainian).

7. Petrov R, Transpozytsiia “acquis” Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu u pravovi systemy tretikh krain (Istyna 2012) (in Ukrainian).

8. Ustymenko V, Adaptatsiia natsionalnoho zakonodavstva do prava Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu: osnovy, kryterii, vymiry stiikosti (Akademperiodyka 2025) (in Ukrainian).

Edited books

9. Onishchenko N (ed), Pravova doktryna i derzhavnist: vektor vzaiemozviazku (Naukova dumka 2022) (in Ukrainian).

10. Parkhomenko N (ed), Pravotvorennia i pravotvorchist v umovakh voiennoho stanu ta myrobudivnytstva (Parlamentske vydavnytstvo 2023) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

11. Goldoni M, ‘Politicising EU Lawmaking? The Spitzenkandidaten Experiment as a Cautionary Tale’ [2016] 22(3) European Law Journal 279–295.

12. Mészáros A, ‘New challenges in the EU lawmaking’ [2004] (ІІІ)1 European Integration Studies 19–24.

13. Simonelli F, Iacob N, ‘Can We Better the European Union Better Regulation Agenda?’ [2021] 12(4) European Journal of Risk Regulation 849–860. doi:10.1017/err.2021.40

14. Onishchenko N, ‘Pravovyi rozvytok ta pravoznavchi zapyty suspilstva’ [2024] 31(4) Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy 15–26 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31359/19930909-2024-31-4-15 (in Ukrainian).

15. Onishchenko N, ‘Efektyvnist ta yakist zakonodavstva u fokusi vidbudovy Ukrainy’ [2022] 13 Almanakh prava 23–27 (in Ukrainian).

16. Poiedynok V, ‘Systema pravovykh rezhymiv inozemnoho investuvannia’ [2011] 88 Visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Yurydychni nauky 36–40 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

17. Lillemiae O, ‘Hospodarsko-pravove zabezpechennia derzhavnoi dopomohy subiektam hospodariuvannia’ (Thesis abstract, 2016) (in Ukrainian).

18. Petrunenko Ya, ‘Kontseptualni zasady hospodarsko-pravovykh zasobiv zabezpechennia efektyvnoho vykorystannia derzhavnykh koshtiv’ (dissertation, 2021) (in Ukrainian).

Websites

19. Press release. Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, James A. Robinson. They have helped us understand differences in prosperity between nations (14 October 2024. The Nobel Prize) <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/press-release> (accessed 11.04.2025).

20. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development <https://sdgs. un.org/2030agenda> (accessed 11.04.2025).