Before the twentieth century, obtaining intellectual property protection in different
countries was considered a difficult task since the legislative regulations of this process were
quite different. That is why more and more states wanted to systematise and develop a unified
approach to the legal regulation of intellectual property at the international level.
The emergence of international legislation on intellectual property is explained by the
fact that the rights to the results of intellectual activity have the quality of a ‘territorial
limitation’, i.e. in the absence of international treaties, they are recognised and protected only in
the territory of the state where they originally appeared.
The international system of legal regulation of social relations related to the creation and
use of intellectual property results is based on the desire to overcome this contradiction. It
interacts with national systems of intellectual property protection, ensuring the rights of
creators outside their countries.
The article emphasises that, given the intensification of international economic and
cultural relations, the unification of intellectual property legislation is essential. The adoption of
international treaties solves this problem only partially. The analysis shows that the
development of international legal instruments does not contribute to, and sometimes even
hinders, the development of intellectual property law since it is based on the prevailing
paradigm, according to which ensuring a high level of legal protection of intellectual rights is the
main criterion for assessing legislation.
The author examines the current state of social relations in intellectual property law, the
dynamics of international legal regulation, and the peculiarities of legislative adaptation to the
current priorities of developed countries in this area.
1. Malets, M. R. (2016). The concept and content of the innovative component in intellectual activity.
Administrative law and process: Problems and prospects for development: proceedings of the round-table, pp. 40–43.
[In Ukrainian];
2. Shkarupa, V., & Tsymbaliuk, V. (2006). Application of legal provisions to forming the foundations of the
theory of information law. Legal Informatics, 3(11), 46–53. [In Ukrainian];
3. Geist, M. (2001). Old copyright law and new technologies: Canadian copyright reform in the digital age.
Michael Geists Blog. Retrieved from http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/791/139// [In English]
4. Federal Trade Commission. (2003). To promote innovation: The proper balance of competition and patent
law and policy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. [In English]
5. Derieux, E., & Granchet, A. (2010). Lutte contre le téléchargement illégal: Loi Dadvsi et Hadop. Sa Lamy,
p. 266. [In English]
6. Harhoff, D., & Wagner, S. (2005). Modelling the duration of patent examination at the European Patent
Office (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5283). Centre for Economic Policy Research. [In English]
7. The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. (2020). Digital rights management. Encyclopedia Britannica.
Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/digital-rights-management. [In English]
8. Romaniuk, I. M. (2010). Domestic legislation in the field of criminal legal protection of intellectual property.
Customs Affairs, 4(2), 73–77. [In Ukrainian];
9. Opinion on the Draft Constitution of Ukraine. (1996). Retrieved from
http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-INF%281996%29006-e. [In Ukrainian];
10. Androshchuk, H. O. (2022). Intellectual property as a factor in ensuring China's national economic security.
Chinese Civilization: Traditions and Modernity: proceedings of the XVI International Scientific Conference, vol. 1,
pp. 81–101. [In Ukrainian];
11. Constitution of the United States of 1787. Retrieved from https://uk.wikisource.org/wiki/; Bill of Rights of the
United States 1791. Retrieved from https://constituante.livejournal.com/11694.html. [In English]
12. Dowling vs. United States, 473 US 207. (1985). Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-
court/473/207.html. [In English]
13. Tatsii, V. Ya. (2008). Current issues in developing domestic constitutionalism at the present stage of state
building. Bulletin of the Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 3(54), 35–42. [In English]
14. Zabokrytskyi, I. I. (2018). On the main characteristics of modern constitutions. Comparative and Analytical
Law: Electronic Scientific Edition, 1, 50–54. [In Ukrainian];
15. Butnik-Siverskyi, O. (2005). Heuristics in the intellectual economy or the formation of an innovation
entrepreneurship system. Intellectual Property, 8, 29–34; 9, 27–32. [In Ukrainian];