Dogmatic and practical analysis of the scope of necessary repulsion: the difficulties of determining the legal threshold between legitimate defense and its excess in a comparative-legal context

Abstract

The present work is devoted to the dogmatic and practical analysis of the institution of necessary repulsion in criminal
law, with special attention to the legal issues related to the definition of the boundary between legitimate defense and its
excesses. This issue is one of the most delicate areas of criminal law theory and practice, where the state's obligation to protect
the life and safety of a person intersects with the right of an individual to independently exercise his or her own legal defense.
The aim of the study is to determine how clearly the scope of necessary repulsion is defined in the current Georgian law and
how consistently it is interpreted in judicial practice. The work analyzes the legal nature of necessary repulsion, its constitutional
and legal foundations and the criteria on the basis of which the scope of legitimate defense is determined. Special emphasis is
placed on cases where self-defense exceeds the permissible limit and becomes a criminally punishable act. The study is based on
both an analysis of national legislation and judicial practice, as well as a comparative legal approach, within the framework of
which the experience of various legal systems, including continental European and Anglo-Saxon law, is discussed. The
comparative analysis reveals that the determination of the scope of necessary repulsion in all legal systems is related to the
criteria of proportionality, necessity and reality of the threat, although their practical application is based on different
interpretative approaches. The paper highlights that in certain cases Georgian legal practice is not distinguished by uniformity
in the assessment of necessary repulsion, which increases the risk of legal uncertainty and affects the principle of legal certainty.
This circumstance is particularly problematic in the context where an individual has to make a quick decision in the face of a
threat to life and health. The final section presents recommendations aimed at the normative and practical refinement of the
institution of necessary deterrence, including a clearer formulation of assessment criteria, ensuring uniformity of judicial
practice, and introducing relevant standards based on international experience.