DEFINING THE “GOLD STANDARD”: CREDIBILITY IN THE STRUCTURE OF SECURITY GUARANTEES TREATIES, ВИЗНАЧЕННЯ «ЗОЛОТОГО СТАНДАРТУ»: НАДІЙНІСТЬ У СТРУКТУРІ ДОГОВОРІВ ПРО ГАРАНТІЇ БЕЗПЕКИ

<jats:p>The Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, has prompted a reassessment of security guarantees for states within the European security architecture. The research objective of this article is to examine the structural features that make security guarantees credible by analysing four treaties: NATO’s founding Washington Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty of the European Union, the Treaty of Aachen (Germany–France, 2019), and the Kensington Treaty (UK–Germany, 2025). The comparative analysis focuses on seven structural elements: scope of obligations, including geographical dimensions and strategic priorities; trigger clauses (casus foederis); response mechanisms, and precedents of invocation; supplementary defence-related obligations; consultation and coordination mechanisms; dispute resolution procedures; and withdrawal, and amendment clauses. As a result of the research, the article argues that a “gold standard” security guarantee treaty is more credible when it defines its geographical scope, acknowledges strategic allies and threats, provides trigger definitions, establishes response mechanisms, includes specified coordination platforms with regular consultations at various levels. Here, “gold standard” is an analytical pattern derived from the treaty comparison, rather than a normative model. Military means, if a part of the response mechanism, should be supported by economic cooperation in the defence industry. The article addresses nuclear deterrence as a significant feature of credibility, noting that while it influences the choice of partners, it does not prevent violations of international law. The conclusion emphasizes that international law serves as an instrument for creating frameworks for cooperation and commitment, though ultimate enforcement depends on political will. For countries at war, such as Ukraine, offering security guarantees – even with phased implementation – constitutes a statement of strategic priorities. Consequently, these findings offer an evidence-based guide for negotiators developing Ukrainian security guarantees.</jats:p>