COMPENSATION FOR MARINE POLLUTION DAMAGE AND THE BALANCE BETWEEN ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO A SAFE ENVIRONMENT

Abstract

The subject of the study is the legal and institutional framework for compensation for damage caused by marine environmental pollution, with special attention to the balance between economic interests and the fundamental right to a safe environment. The paper focuses on the interaction between constitutional guarantees, international maritime law, environmental liability, civil compensation mechanisms, insurance instruments, and human rights standards in ensuring effective protection of the marine environment. Methodology. The research is based on a combination of comparative-legal, systemic, environmental-law, human-rights-based, and institutional-economic methods. It integrates constitutional analysis, evaluation of international maritime conventions, assessment of Ukrainian environmental and civil legislation, and examination of European human rights standards. This methodological approach made it possible to identify the interdependence between maritime economic activity, ecological safety, legal accountability, and the enforceability of environmental rights. The aim of the work is to define the legal architecture of compensation for marine pollution damage, assess its capacity to protect both economic interests and environmental rights, and develop proposals for strengthening damage assessment, institutional coordination, insurance mechanisms, digital evidence, and ecological restoration. The results of the study show that compensation for marine environmental pollution operates as a complex legal and economic instrument combining civil liability, public environmental protection, maritime safety, insurance guarantees, and human rights remedies. International instruments such as UNCLOS, MARPOL, the 1992 Civil Liability Convention, the 2001 Bunker Oil Pollution Damage Convention, and the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution establish the international and regional framework for prevention, liability, and compensation. Ukrainian legislation provides constitutional, environmental, water, maritime, civil, administrative, and criminal law foundations for compensation, but its effectiveness depends on coherent implementation, reliable damage assessment, proof of causation, and targeted use of recovered funds. The study highlights that the future Ukrainian model should be based on the polluter pays principle, modernization of damage assessment methodologies, recognition of digital environmental evidence, stronger coordination between environmental and maritime authorities, and transparent restoration programs. Conclusion. Legal regulation of compensation for marine pollution damage is an environmental, economic, and human rights function of the state. Ukraine’s experience demonstrates that protection of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov requires a model in which maritime economic activity remains legally predictable, while polluters bear the real costs of prevention, cleanup, compensation, and restoration. The effectiveness of such regulation will depend on the ability of Ukrainian law to connect liability, financial guarantees, institutional accountability, and ecological rehabilitation within a framework aligned with European standards of environmental governance and human rights protection.