Balance of Private and Public Interest Law in Matters of Restricting Human Rights for the Purposes of National Security

The work deals with the issues of determining the balance of private (individual) and public (state) interests in terms of admissibility of limiting human rights and freedoms in cases where it increases or prevents threats to national security. This was the aim of the study, as this issue has become highly relevant because of the growing number of hybrid threats to national security, which can be countered through the introduction of separate restrictions on human rights by the state. The systemic approach, the hermeneutic, and doctrinal approach were used to conclude that almost all constitutions, constitutional acts and constitutional laws of the EU and NATO member states provide for the possibility of restricting human rights. Such restrictions are imposed for the purposes of national security, public necessity or national interests of the state. Moreover, the list of cases where the restrictions on civil rights may be applied in the national security interests in national legislation is often much wider than in international legal acts. This demonstrates the primacy of national interests over individual interests, which is defined by national legislators as the common good at the constitutional level. The lack of detailed cases and models of state response to these processes determines the conclusions on the need to introduce a system of legally determined conditions for the application of restrictive measures. That is why further research should focus on identifying and detailing the criteria for applying measures to restrict civil rights for the purposes of national security at the constitutional level.