The article is dedicated to the concept of “friendly fire” in its criminal law aspect. This phenomenon is examined as an act that involves causing harm, for which criminal liability is provided. It is indicated that with the beginning of full-scale Russian aggression against Ukraine, the relevance of the problem is increasing and that it cannot be solved solely on dogmatic grounds, from the standpoint of formal legality, but also requires a social approach, assessment of the act from the point of view of expediency – that is, on the principles developed in his time by P. M. Rabinovych. The question of naming the corresponding phenomenon is highlighted, concluding that despite its conventionality, the term “friendly fire” is preferable. The characteristics of “friendly fire” are identified and each is analyzed, leading to the formulation of a definition for the studied concept. Types of “friendly fire” are indicated, and it is concluded that their classification requires separate research. Using a specific example, the complexity of criminal law assessment of damage caused by “friendly fire” and the necessity of referring to the principles of the theory of legality are demonstrated.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Regan G, Backfire: a history of friendly fire from ancient warfare to the present day (Robson Books Ltd 2002).

2. Regan G, Blue on Blue: A History of Friendly Fire (Avon Books 1995).

3. Shrader C R, Amicide: the problem of friendly fire in modern war (US Army Combat Studies Institute 1982).

4. Karpenko M, Viiskovi zlochyny: pytannia teorii, zakonodavstva i praktyky (Natsionalna akademiia upravlinnia 2019).

5. Obodovskyi O, Viiskovi kryminalni pravoporushennia: Teoriia i praktyka (Iurydychna literatura 2023).

Edited books

 6. Zlochyny proty vstanovlenoho poriadku nesennia viiskovoi sluzhby (viiskovi zlochyny): navch. posibnyk (M Panov red, Pravo 2011).

Journal articles

7. Davidson M J, ‘Friendly fire and the limits of the military justice system’ [2011] 64(1) Naval War College Review 122–141.

8. Batenko I, Landyshevskyi V, Havrysh M, ‘Vohneve urazhennia svoikh viisk yak problema pry orhanizatsii ta vedenni boiovykh dii’ [2023] 2(76) Zbirnyk naukovykh prats Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu Povitrianykh Syl 18–22.

Theses

9. Rasmussen R E, ‘The Wrong Target – The Problem of Mistargeting Resulting in Fratricide and Civilian Casualties’ (paper submitted to Master of Science Degree 2007) <https://apps. dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA468785.pdf> (accessed 20.11.2024).

Conference papers

10. Hornostai A, ‘Vypadky ta pravovi naslidky «druzhnoho vohniu» v praktytsi inozemnykh krain’, Ukrainska kryminalna yustytsiia u post/voiennii paradyhmi: materialy Kh (XXIII) Lvivskoho forumu kryminalnoi yustytsii (Lviv, 19–20 veresnia 2024 roku, I HazdaikaVasylyshyn uporiadnyk, LvDUVS 2024) 38–42.

11. Navrotskyi V, ‘Obsiah poniattia (vydy) “druzhnoho vohniu” v kryminalnomu pravi’, Ukrainska kryminalna yustytsiia u post/voiennii paradyhmi: materialy Kh (XXIII) Lvivskoho forumu kryminalnoi yustytsii (Lviv, 19–20 veresnia 2024 roku, I Hazdaika-Vasylyshyn uporiadnyk, LvDUVS 2024) 139–143.