In this article, the author analyzes the legal nature of human genetic identity and the use of this term in Ukrainian legislation. Legislatively established restrictions on the inadmissibility of interference with the human genome for the purpose of modifying the genome of descendants embody the international consensus on the prohibition of genome modification through the germ line. At the same time, international and national legislation uses a number of terms: human genetic characteristics, human genetic identity, human genetic apparatus, the definitions of which are not enshrined in regulatory legal acts and for which there is no official legal interpretation. The purpose of this article is to examine the legal nature of human genetic identity in the context of the use of relevant terminology in Ukrainian legislation. The principles established by the 1997 UNESCO Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights regarding the recognition of the genome as the heritage of all humanity in a symbolic sense, respect for human dignity, non-discrimination, protection against abuse, etc.,

Journal articles

1. Baylis F, Darnovsky M, Hasson K, Krahn T M, ‘Human Germline and Heritable Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape’ [2020] 3 The CRISPR Journal 365–377 https://doi. org/10.1089/crispr.2020.0082.

2. de Andrade N N G, Human Genetic Manipulation and the Right to Identity: The Contradictions of Human Rights Law in Regulating the Human Genome’ [2010] 7 SCRIPT- ed 429–452.

3. Goekoop F, van El C G, Widdershoven G, Dzinalija N, Cornel M, Evans N, ‘Systematic scoping review of the concept of ‘genetic identity’ and its relevance for germline modification’ [2020] 15(1) PLoS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228263.

4. Iasechko S, Kokhanovskaya E, Senyuta I, ‘Genetic information: legal nature and conceptual and categorical apparatus’ [2025] 3 Revista Jurtdica unicuritiba 382–401.

5. Kabata F, Thaldar D, ‘The human genome as the common heritage of humanity’ [2023] 16 (1) Frontiers in Genetics 10–14 https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1282515.

6. Krushelnytska H, ‘Private-law definition of the concept and legal nature of human genetic information’ [2023] 41(76) Cuestiones Poltticas 400–418 https://doi.org/10.46398/ cuestpol.4176.23. 

7. Liaw Y Q, ‘An analysis of different concepts of “identity” in the heritable genome editing debate’ [2024] 27 Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 121–131 https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11019-023-10189-1.

8. Matsumoto D, Nomura W, ‘The history of genome editing: advances from the interface of chemistry & biology’ [2023] 59 Chemical Communications 7676–7684 https://doi. org/10.1039/D3CC00559C.

9. Zheng Y, Li Y, Zhou K, Li T, VanDusen N J, Hua Y, ‘Precise genome-editing in human diseases: mechanisms, strategies and applications’ [2024] 9 Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 47 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-024-01750-2.

10. Dovhan B, Mikhailina T, ‘Henomna informatsiia liudyny ta yii znachennia dlia dnk-analizu: pravovyi aspekt’ [2023] 1 Naukovyi visnyk Khersonskoho derzhavnoho universytetu 5–9 (in Ukrainian).

11. Seniuta I, Yasechko S, ‘Pravove rehuliuvannia henetychnoi informatsii ta henetychnoho testuvannia v Ukraini: vid pravnychoi pryrody do realizatsii osobystykh nemainovykh prav’ [2025] 1(35) Medychne pravo 44–57 (in Ukrainian).

Websites

12. Green E, ‘Genome’ (accessed 29.01.2026).

13. Human genome editing (WHO) < Oan genome editing .ealth-topics/human-genome- editing?utm_source=chatgpt.com#tab=tab_1> (accessed 29.01.2026).

14. Identity (Oxford Learner’s Dictionary of Academic English) (accessed 29.01.2026).

15. Jewell C, Balakrishnan V S, ‘The battle to own the CRISPR–Cas9 gene-editing tool’ (April 21, 2017) (accessed 29.01.2026).

16. Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020 (accessed 29.01.2026).

17. Stefanyshyn N, ‘Try DNK – odne dytia. Yak pratsiuie mitokhondrialne donorstvo, vid choho riatuie i chy dast nadiiu odnostatevym param?’ (08 lystopada 2025) (accessed 29.01.2026) (in Ukrainian).